i>ei 


LSS 


D apt  1st     Sysletn  bc^iiii tie d 


BAP 
SUZ 


DC 


^ 


?K 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/baptistsystemexaOOse 


■ 


gaptist  System  €nmht)a 


BAPTIST    SYSTEM   EXAMINED/^ 

THE  CHURCH  VINDICATED, 


SECTARIANISM   REBUKED. 

A    REVIEW    OF 

Taller  on  Baptism  and  the  Terms  of  Gommuuion." 


BY 

J^IDELJSJ^CRUTATOR. 

C    Rev.  J.  A.  Sei*s,  A.  M.      Baltimore,  Aid.    1 

"  Holding  fast  the  faithful  word  as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he 
may  be  able,  by  sound  doctrine,  both  to  exhort  and  convince  gain- 
savers.  For  there  be  many  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers, 
whose  mouths  must  be  stopped." — Paid  to  Titus. 

>     *«»     < 


BALTIMORE: 

PUBLISHED    AND    SOLD    BY 
T.    NEWTON    KURTZ, 

NO.   151  WEST  PRATT  STREET. 
1854. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  One 
Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and  Fifty-four,  by  T.  Nbwtok 
Kurtz,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  District  of  Marvland. 


A  WOKD   PBOEMIAL. 


These  sheets  contain,  with  a  few  emendations  of 
hasty  composition,  and  a  few  additions  which 
seemed  to  he  desirable,  what  has  heretofore  been 
published  in  the  columns  of  the  Lutheran  Observer. 
When  this  Review  was  commenced,  it  was  by  no 
means  expected  to  make  a  volume,  but  like  the 
"  Fern  Leaves  from  Fanny's  Portfolio,"  it greic,  and 
is  now  given  in  this  form  in  answer  to  the  expressed 
wishes  of  those  who  ought  to  understand  its  merits. 

No  apology  is  offered  for  undertaking  to  discuss 
the  subjects  here  treated.  Nothing  is  asked  for 
the  writer  but  straightforward  justice  ;  and  nothing 
is  asked  for  his  Review  but  a  candid  examination. 
As  to  any  thing  beyond  this  there  are  no  mis- 
givings, and  therefore  no  supplications  to  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  reader. 

It  need  not  be  said  to  what  extent  other  men's 
labors  have  been  used  in  this  production,  especially 
the  works  of  Beecher,  Bickersteth,  Taylor,  Ed- 
wards, and  Miller  on  the  same  subjects.  Envious 
critics,  who  would  condemn  an  essay  because  every 
line,  paragraph,  or  thought  in  it  is  not  there  pre- 
sented for  the  first  time,  will  find  room  to  despise 
this  book;  whilst  those  who  are  willing  to  see  and 


6 


acknowledge  original  labor  will  not  be  quite  dis- 
appointed in  seeking  for  it  in  these  pages.  But  the 
reader  may  ascribe  to  us  or  to  others  just  so  much 
of  this  Review  as  he  sees  fit,  and  we  shall  be  con- 
tent. It  has  not  been  written  for  the  empty  com- 
pliments of  finical  literati,  but  for  the  exhibition 
of  God's  truth  against  insolent  error,  and  the  vin- 
dication of  his  Church.  The  only  issue  upon  which 
it  is  put  up  for  trial  is,  Does  it  speak  the  truth  ?  Is 
its  logic  sound  ?  Is  it  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
doctrines  which  it  calls  in  question  ?  If  it  will  not 
stand  upon  these  points,  the  writer  is  willing  that 
it  should  fall,  and  the  sooner  the  better.  But  so 
long  as  its  main  reasonings  and  conclusions  are  not 
refuted  and  set  aside,  all  secondary  and  collateral 
issues  must  remain  as  insignificant  as  the  dust  upon 
the  balance,  and  the  man  who  makes  them  shall 
merit  only  contempt  for  his  pains. 


Baltimore,  September,  1854. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTEE.  PAGE. 

I.  Subject  of  the  Review  described,  and 

the  Baptist  system  stated  ....       9 

II.  General  considerations  against  it   .     .20 

III.  Baptize  not  a  stronger  word  than  Bapto    30 

IV.  Explanations,  a  digression     .      ...     44 
V.  Immersion   not   the   only  meaning  of 

Baplizo 50 

VI.  Passages  relied  on  by  Baptists  to  prove 
that  Baplizo  means  total  immersion 

and  nothing  else 69 

VII.  Baptizo  as  used  in  the  Septuagint      .     .     85 

VIII.  Argument  from  Bapto 104 

IX.  An  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  divers 

baptisms  under  the  Mosaic  law  .     .  124 
X.   Baplizo  in  the  New  Testament     .     .     .  145 
XI.  Proofs  that  Baptizo,  as  a  religious  word, 
signifies  a  religions  pwijyivg  without 

regard  to  mode 164 

XII.  Affusion,  an  authorized  mode  of  admin- 
istering Christian  Baptism      .     .     .  190 
XIII.  The  places    and  circumstances  of  the 
baptisms  recorded  in  the  Scriptures 
opposed  to  the  immersion  theory    .  209 


VIII  CONTENTS. 

OHAP.  PAGE. 

XIV.  The    prepositions    used   in  connection 

with   Baptizo,   and    the  allusions  to 

Baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  no 

proofs  in  favor  of  immersion      .     .  238 

XV.  The  practice  of  the  Greek  and  Patristic 

Church  respecting  Baptism    .      .     .  255 

XVI.  Sum  of  the  argument ;  agreement  of 
authorities;  and  general  tendencies 
of  Baptist  system 271 

XVII.  Infant  BajHism  not  a  sin,  but  enjoined 

in  the  commission  ;  infant  disciple- 
ship   290 

XVIII.  Infants  included  in  u  all  nations  ;  "  the 

Baptism  of  families  by  the  Apostles,  308 
XIX.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,  and  outlines 

of  other  arguments 333 

XX.   Terms  of  Communion,  as  held  by  Bap- 
tists, set  forth  in  their  true  light      .  356 

[The  reader  -will  observe  that  the  last  three  chapters  in 
the  book  are  numbered  wrong.] 


REVIEW  OF  FULLER 

ON 

BAPTIS3I  AND  THE  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION.* 

CHAPTER  I. 

Richard  Fuller — his  assault  upon  the  great 
body  of  the  church — his  system. 

Richard  Fuller,  we  believe,  is  a  gentle- 
man of  fortune,  an  ex-lawyer,  a  doctor  of 
divinity,  a  minister  in  a  congregation  of 
Baptists  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  and  a  man 
of  distinction  among  the  people  who  delight  to 
honor  him  as  their  champion.  He  professes 
to  write  in  a  catholic  and  fraternal  spirit ; 
and  bating  a  few  of  his  fundamental  posi- 

*  "  Baptism,  and  the  Terms  of  Communion :  An  Arjjument, 
by  Richard  Fuller.  Second  edition,  Charleston:  Southern 
Baptist  Publication  Society."    pp.  251. 

2 


10 

we  are  glad  to  see  him  thus  improving 
upon  the  temper  of  the  Carsons,  Broadduses 
and  others,  whose  oft  exploded  ratiocinations 
on  this  controversy  he  has  so  diligently  col- 
lected and  reproduced.  He  avows  himself 
(ia  Bap'ist  on  principle,  and  not  in  sectarian- 
ism nor  bigotry;''  that  is,  he  claims  to  be  an 
exception  to  Baptists  generally,  who,  if  we 
are  to  take  the  implications  of  his  own  avow, 
al,  are  both  sectarian  and  bigoted.  How  far 
he  is  emitled  to  this  special  exemption,  may 
be  fairly  ascertained  from  the  zeal  with 
which  he  insists,  that  all  who  are  not  immer- 
sed are  outside  of  the  church  which  Christ 
instituted,  unworthy  of  being  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  neglecting  a  positive  com- 
mand  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  in  alarming 
danger  of  eternal  death.  To  which  of  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Baptists  in  our  country  Mr. 
Fuller  belongs,  he  does  not  tell  us  ;  but  rath- 
er  insinuates,  that  he  does  not  exactly  coin- 
cide with  either  class  of  this  multifarious 
progeny.  This  is,  at  least,  one  way  of  excu- 
sing himself  from  responsibility  for  some  of 
the  more  disagreeable  features  of  the  system 


11 

which  he  advocates ;  and  whatever  excep- 
tions we  may  take  to  his  doctrines  or  his 
logic,  we  readily  accord  to  him  the  tact  and 
shrewdness  of  an  accomplished  dialectician. 
His  "argument,"  to  those  unacquainted  with 
the  subject,  bears  an  air  of  plausibility  about 
it  very  well  calculated  to  make  an  impres- 
sion. His  dexterous  evasions  of  the  real 
matters  in  dispute,  his  subtle  management 
to  pass  off  for  granted  the  very  things  to  be 
proven,  his  array  of  learned  authorities  upon 
points  which  nobody  denies,  and  the  whining 
affectation  in  which  he  commends  the  Bap- 
tists, or  rather  himself,  to  popular  sympathy, 
to  say  nothing  of  his  misrepresentations  and 
unreliable  quotations,  give  to  his  book  a  cer- 
tain factitious  force,  to  which  his  cause  is  by 
no  means  entitled,  and  which,  by  Divine 
help,  we  propose  to  reduce  to  its  real  noth- 
ingness. 

We  have  for  Dr.  Fuller,  personally,  none 
but  the  kindest  feelings.  We  trust  he  is  con- 
scientious and  sincere.  His  carrying  of  the 
mere  lawyer  into  theology,  and  his  resort  to 
very  questionable  means  to  sway  the  unsus- 


12 

peeling  and  uninformed,  are  doubtless  to  be 
mainly  attributed  to  the  force  of  habit  and 
education,  and  to  the  mistakes,  to  say  noth- 
ing worse,  of  those  whom  he  has  chosen  as 
his  guides.  Neither  do  we  love  controversy. 
It  pains  us  as  much  to  be  driven  into  these 
contentions  about  sacred  things,  as  it  pains 
Dr.  Fuller  and  his  friends  to  exclude  us  from 
the  table  of  the  Lord.  To  him,  however, 
belongs  the  distinction  of  being  the  aggressor 
— the  prosecutor  in  this  cause.  Having  ven- 
tured solemnly  and  emphatically  to  charge 
one  hundred  and  ninety  out  of  every  two 
hundred  of  the  great  household  of  Christ  with 
the  downright  violation  of  one  of  the  plainest 
and  most  positive  commands  of  the  Saviour 
— with  entire  alienation  from  the  visible 
church — and  with  the  occupancy  of  a  posi- 
tion of  risk  and  jeopardy  enough  to  alarm 
any  serious  mind, — there  is  no  alternative 
left  us,  but  to  surrender  to  him  the  liberty 
which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  to  take  up 
one  of  the  swords  which  he  has  crossed  be- 
fore us.  We  have  no  fault  to  find  with  him 
or  his  friends  for  choosing  to  perform  their 


13 

baptisms  by  immersion.  This  is  a  liberty 
of  which  we  have  no  wish  to  deprive  him. 
But  to  the  arrogant  assumptions  with  which 
he  seeks  to  unchurch  us,  and  to  put  us  in 
danger  of  losing  heaven,  we  will  not  give 
place  by  subjection,  no  not  for  an  hour,  that 
the  truth  of  the  gospel  may  not  be  wrested 
from  us.  If  he  is  disposed  to  complain  that 
his  teachings  should  be  controverted,  let  him 
not  forget  the  daring  assault  that  he  has 
made  upon  the  faith  and  hope  of  millions  of 
God's  children  ;  and  if  he  should  feel  him- 
self incommoded  by  the  resistance  that  he 
shall  meet,  let  him  remember  that  he  made 
the  first  breach  of  the  peace. 

To  those  familiar  with  the  Baptist  contro- 
versy, it  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  the  na- 
ture of  the  system  which  Dr.  Fuller's  "  ar- 
gument" is  designed  to  sustain.  It  is  that 
maintained  by  Christ-ians,Campbellites,Tun- 
kers,  Millerites,  and  all  other  Baptists.  We 
do  not  attribute  to  Dr.  Fuller  all  the  vaga- 
ries and  heresies  of  the  parties  named  ;  but 
simply  that  the  system  he  supports  is  that 
supported  in  common  by  all  Baptists.  But 
2* 


14 

as  he  disclaims  being  a  Baptist  in  the  depart- 
ments of  "sectarianism  and  bigotry,"  and  is 
very  solicitous  that  his  reviewers  should 
quote  him  fairly,  it  may  be  as  well  once  for 
all  to  show  what  his  position  is. 

1.  Dr.  Fuller  maintains,  that  the  command 
of  Christ  to  baptize  is  a  command  to  immerse, 
"  The  question  before  us  then  is  this,  What 
does  baptizo  mean  1  I  answer,  it  means  im- 
merse; this  I  affirm  positively."  "  The  as- 
sertion that  baptizo  has  different  meanings  " 
he  pronounces  "  puerility  "  and  "  folly  ;"  p. 
14,  15.  "Baptizo  always  denotes  a  total 
immersion;"  p.  19.  "1  have  ascertained 
the  meaning  of  baptizo.  It  signifies  to  im- 
merse, and  has  no  other  meaning;'''  p.  25.  "  In 
commanding  his  disciples  to  be  baptized,  Je- 
sus knew  what  act  he  enjoined,  and  he  could 
have  been  at  no  loss  for  a  word  clearly  to 
express  his  meaning.  If  Jesus  meant  im- 
merse, and  nothing  else,  the  word  was  baptizo. 
This  is  the  word  he  has  used,  and  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  always  employs  when  the  rite  of 
baptisrn  is  mentioned;''  p.  31.  "The  word 
baptizo  has  but  one   meaning,  and    always 


15 

signifies  immerse;"  p.  45.  "  1  propose  the  fol- 
lowing questions  to  my  reader's  conscience  : 
Is  it  possible  to  doubt  what  Christ  intends 
when  he  uses  the  word  baptizo?  Is  sprink- 
ling, or  pouring,  baptism?  Is  it  not  a  fear- 
ful thing  to  alter  an  ordinance  instituted  by 
the  Lord  Jesus?"  p.  49.  "As  to  baptism, 
the  very  thing,  the  only  act  he  commands,  is 
immersion;"  p.  50.  "  Jesus  commands  his 
disciples  to  be  immersed  ;"  p.  70. 

2.  Dr.  Fuller  maintains,  that  all  such  as 
have  not  been  immersed  are  unbaptized,  and 
delinquent  with  respect  to  a  positive  com- 
mand of  Christ. 

He  evinces  a  singular  cautiousness  and 
reserve  as  to  the  plain  and  categorical 
avowal  of  this  inevitable  consequence  of 
his  first  position.  But  the  evidence  that 
this  is  his  doctrine  is  so  clear,  as  well  upon 
the  face  as  in  the  very  marrow  of  his  ar- 
gument, that  he  will  not  dare  to  disclaim 
it.  "  No  one  can  partake  of  the  Supper," 
says  he,  "  who  is  not  a  member  in  a  visi- 
ble church."  "  Baptism  is  a  pre-requisite 
to  admission   into  a  visible  church  properly 


16 

organized  ;"  p.  229.  And  when  he  comes 
to  consider  why  all  but  Baptists  are  exclud- 
ed from  his  communions  in  the  Supper,  the 
grand  difficulty  which  he  assigns  is,  "  we 
cannot  admit  to  the  Supper  those  whom  we 
regard  as  ujibaplized,  however  much,  &c.  .  . 
To  do  this"  (that  is,  to  permit  common  Chris- 
tians to  unite  in  the  supper  with  Baptists,) 
"  would  be  to  declare  such  persons  qualified 
for  membership  in  our  churches;  which  would 
be  to  admit  members  without  baptism;  which 
would  be  to  abolish  baptism  altogether!"  p. 
237. 

3.  Dr.  Fuller  maintains  that  to  refuse  to 
be  immersed  is  a  disobedience  to  a  positive 
command,  involving  a  degree  of  criminality 
making  the  prospect  of  final  salvation  to 
those  who  are  not  immersed  exceedingly 
problematical. 

This  is  another  position  in  which  he  is 
very  unsteady.  Now  he  half  affirms  it, 
and  then  half  denies  it.  Here  he  recog- 
nizes us  as  his  dear  brethren  in  Christ,  and 
there  he  points  with  horror  to  our  dreadful 
danger  by   reason  of  our  disobedience  ;    at 


17 

the  same  time  repeating  in  a  solemn  under- 
tone those  fearful  words,  "  The  Lord  Jesus 
shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his 
mighty  angels  in  flaming  fire,  taking  ven- 
geance upon  them  that  know  not  God  and 
that  obey  not  the  gospel ;"  p.  105.  Why  all 
this  trepidation  and  hesitation  to  "  face  the 
music?"  Why  not  out  boldly  and  fairly 
with  the  whole  thing  ?  We  are  either  Chris- 
tians entitled  to  heaven,  or  we  are  not.  If 
we  are  Christians,  then  all  this  ado  about 
baptizo  and  immersion  is  sheer  nonsense; 
and  the  unimmersed,  if  obedient  in  other  re- 
spects, are  as  good  and  as  safe  as  the  im- 
mersed, whether  they  have  gone  under  once 
or  thrice,  backwards  or  forwards.  If  Dr. 
Fuller  is  willing  to  admit  this,  he  surren- 
ders his  cause  and  the  controversy  is  at  an 
end  ;  if  he  does  not  admit  it,  then  he  main- 
tains that  the  salvation  of  the  unimmersed  is 
exceedingly  problematical  and  can  have  no 
good  hope  of  meeting  any  of  them  in  heaven. 
Is  this  his  doctrine  1  Hear  him :  "  My  dear 
reader,  .  .  the  matter  before  you  is  not 
an  abstraction  ;  it  is  a  'plain  duty,  which  meets 


18 

you  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  Christian 
course,  and  which  you  may  not  evade  without 
insult  to  the  Saviour  and  peril  to  your 
soul;"  p.  105.  "Do  not  say  we  lay  too 
much  stress  on  baptism.  .  Upon  this  point 
I  adjure  you  not  to  upbraid  us,  but  to  obey 
Christ;"  p.  101.  "I  regard  baptism  just  as 
I  do  any  other  command  ;  and  i"  dare  not 
trench  upon  God's  prerogative  and  decide 
what  is  to  he  the  consequence  in  eternity  of 
disobedience  to  any  command;'''  p.  104.  "Is 
it  not  a  fearful  thing  to  alter  an  ordinance 
instituted  by  the  Lord  Jesus  V*  p.  4P. 

We  do  not  suppose  that  Dr.  Fuller  will 
pronounce  these  quotations  unfair.  If  these 
points  do  not  set  forth  the  essence  of  his  sys- 
tem, he  has  none,  and  his  "argument"  is  a 
mere  beating  of  the  air.  We  do  not  there- 
fore  misrepresent  him  when  we  say,  that 
according  to  his  teaching,  Christ  has  com- 
manded men  to  be  immersed,  and  all  those 
who  are  not  immersed  are  outside  of  the 
pale  of  the  visible  church,  and  in  great  dan- 
ger of  losing  their  souls;  that  not  to  be  im- 
mersed is   disobedience  to  Christ,  involving 


19 

unfitness  for  participation  in  the  Holy  Sup. 
per,  and  laying  the  foundation  of  a  reasonable 
apprehension  of  exclusion  from  heaven. 

All  this  we  most  emphatically  deny.  Here 
then  we  join  issues,  and  let  the  world  de- 
cide between  us. 


20 


CHAPTER  II. 

Prima  facia  considerations  against  Dr.  FuU 
ler^s  System — Gospel  Liberty — The  testi- 
mony of  the  great  body  of  the  church  for 
many  ages — The  true  signification  of  Bap. 
tism. 

Before  proceeding  to  analyze  Dr.  Fuller's 
argument,  we  desire  to  advert  to  a  few  a  pri« 
ori  and  prima  facia  considerations,  which 
weigh  so  strongly  against  his  arrogant  as- 
sumptions as  to  require  the  most  solid  and 
inflexible  proof  to  set  them  aside. 

1.  The  whole  gospel  system  is  a  system 
of  liberty.  It  was  so  predicted:  Is.  42  :  7;  61: 
1.  It  was  so  proclaimed  by  its  first  preach- 
ers: Rom.  7  :  6  ;  8  :  2  ;  Gal.  5 :  1.  It  is  spe- 
cially presented  as  a  system  of  freedom  from 
the  bondage  of  burdensome  ceremonies:  Gal 
4:  3-7.  Paul  says  expressly,  "  If  ye  be  dead 
with  Christ  from  the  rudiments  of  the  world, 
why,  as  though  living  in  the  world,  are  ye 
subject  to  ordinances  V  Col.  2 :  20.  "  Why 
is  my  liberty  judged  of  another  man's  con- 


21 

science  ?"  1  Cor.  10  :  29.  "  Stand  fast  there- 
fore in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again 
with  the  yoke  of  bondage."  Gal.  5:1.  And 
how  dissonant  with  this  "perfect  law  of  lib- 
erty"— how  subversive  of  the  free  spirit  of 
the  gospel — how  like  the  old  bondage  to 
grievous  ceremonies — and  how  unlikely  to  be 
a  part  of  the  glorious  economy  of  grace — to 
have  all  its  sublime  blessings  bound  up  in, 
and  made  dependent  on,  the  miserable  little 
external  accident  of  being  far  enough  in  the 
waters  of  baptism  to  have  them  close  for  an 
instant  over  our  heads  !  How  utterly  foreign 
to  the  whole  strain  and  spirit  of  "  the  better 
covenant,"  that  even  the  least  of  its  precious 
promises  should  be  thus  linked  with  such  a 
mere  pnncto  of  outward  ceremony  !  Surely 
the  thing  is  so  grossly  incongruous  with  all 
that  relates  to  the  nature  of  a  system  pre- 
eminently spiritual  and  gracious,  that  it  can- 
not be  entertained  for  a  moment,  except  upon 
the  clearest  and  most  unexceptionable  proofs. 
2.  The  vast  body  of  christian  people  for 
many  ages,  including  multitudes  whose 
3 


22 

names  the  church  wears  upon  her  heart, — 
men  as  conscientious,  holy,  studious,  learn- 
ed, and  gifted  hy  the  Spirit  as  any  that  ever 
sunk  beneath  the  waters— men  who  fought 
the  battles  of  the  Lord,  and  won  to  them- 
selves renown  as  wide  as  Christendom  and 
lasting  as  the  world, — have  maintained,  that 
there  is  no  law  requiring  Christians  to  be 
immersed,  and  were  themselves  never  im- 
mersed. Are  we  to  believe  that  they  were 
all  unbaptized — all  unqualified  to  commune 
in  the  holy  Supper — all  unfit  for  membership 
in  our  churches — all  fundamentally  wrong 
in  their  views,  and  that  it  is  doubtful  whether 
any  of  them  have  reached  heaven?  How 
can  we  thus  asperse  their  fame,  and  insult 
their  memories  and  their  graves?  How  dare 
we  thus  sunder  the  (  ords  of  sympathy  that 
bind  us  to  our  fathers,  and  extinguish  the 
glowing  hope  of  meeting  them  in  glory. 
Well  does  Dr.  Fuller  speak  of  this  as  "a 
matter  which  is  painful;"  and  the  very  pain- 
fulness  of  it  is  a  presumption  against  the 
truth  of  his  system — a  presumption  which  is 
not  to  be  set  aside  except  by  the  resistless 


23 

power  of  demonstration  itself.  To  talk  of 
"lodged  and  incurable  prejudices,"  does  not 
mend  the  matter,  but  only  adds  a  deeper 
tinge  of  sadness  to  our  contemplations  of  the 
honored  dead.  If  our  illustrious  ancestors 
were  in  error — if  the  world's  great  lights 
were  so  far  from  the  truth  as  the  Baptist 
theory  teaches — let  us  not  be  taunted  by  the 
mockery  of  consolation  that  theirs  was  a 
willful  blindness.  We  are  sorry  to  find  Dr. 
Fuller  in  such  "  hot  haste"  to  pass  from  this 
point  the  very  moment  he  touches  it.  It  is 
a  great  and  interesting  inquiry — one  which, 
next  to  that  of  our  own  personal  salvation,  is 
the  most  important  and  absorbing  involved 
in  this  debate.  To  declare  it  ;'  impertinent" 
is  not  to  prove  it  so  ;  and  if  Dr.  Fuller  is  an 
exception  among  Baptists,  he  hereby  shows 
that  he  is  not  so  far  an  exception  among  men 
as  to  grasp  a  hot  iron  with  a  steady  firmness. 
The  very  thought  seems  to  appal  him,  and 
he  hastes  to  bury  it  out  of  his  own  and  his 
reader's  sight.  We  here  thrust  it  upon  him 
again,  not  as  an  absolute  proof  of  the  error 
of  his  system,   but  as  presumptive  evidence 


24 

against  him,  which  must  be  taken  as  deci- 
sive, unless  confronted  by  the  most  unmis- 
takable testimony. 

3.  Another  very  strong  probability  against 
Dr.  Fuller's  system,  arises  from  the  scope 
and  spiritual  significance  of  baptism  itself. 
It  is  the  sacrament  of  regeneration  and  re- 
mission of  sins.  The  command  of  Peter  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  was,  "  Be  baptized,  ev« 
ery  one  of  you,  for  the  remission  of  sins;*' 
Acts  2  :  38.  Ananias  said  to  Paul,  "Arise, 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  ;" 
Acts  22:  16.  Jesus  says,  "Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ;"  John  3:8; 
a  passage  concerning  which  Wall  justly 
says,  "  There  is  not  any  one  Christian  wri- 
ter, of  any  antiquity,  in  any  language,  but 
who  understands  it  of  baptism  ;  and  if  it  be 
not  so  understood,  it  is  difficult  to  give  an 
account  how  a  person  is  born  of  water  any 
more  than  born  of  wood."  Paul  speaks  of 
Christians  as  "saved  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
as  having  "put  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 


25 

flesh  ly  the  circumcision  of  Christ;"  Tit.  3  : 
5,  6;  Col.  2:  11,  13.  Peter  says,  "Bap- 
tism  doth  also  now  save  us;"  a  sacrament 
which  he  describes  to  be,  "  not  the  putting 
away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer 
of  a  good  conscience  toward  God  ;"  1  Peter 
3:  21.  Christ  gave  himself  for  the  church, 
"that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with 
the  washing  of  water  by  the  Word  ;"  Eph. 
5:  25,  26.  Ireneeus  styles  baptism  "our  re- 
generation unto  God  ;"  Lib.  1,  cap.  18.  Ter- 
tullian  calls  it  "the  happy  sacrament  of  wa- 
ter, whereby  we  are  washed  from  the  sins 
of  our  former  blindness  and  recovered  to 
eternal  life;"  Mason's  Selections,  p.  111. 
Origen  says,  "The  baptism  of  the  church  is 
given  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Augustine 
exclaims,  "Behold!  persons  are  baptized, 
then  all  their  sins  are  forgiven  ;"  Sermon  on 
Rom.  8  :  30.  Upon  the  question,  "  What 
are  the  benefits  of  baptism?"  Luther  an- 
swers, "  It  works  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;" 
Small  Cat.,  part  4.  Calvin  says,  "  Remis- 
sion of  sins  is  so  dependent  on  baptism  that 
it  cannot  by  any  means  be  separated  from 
3* 


26 

it;"  Inst.  torn.  4,  cap.  15,  sec.  4.  The  Con- 
fession of  Helvetia  says,  "  To  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Christ  is  to  be  enrolled,  entered 
and  received  into  covenant  and  family,  and 
so  into  the  inheritance  of  the  sons  of  God.  . 
Baptism,  according  to  the  institution  of  the 
Lord,  is  the  fount  of  regeneration."  The 
Bohemian  Confession  calls  it  "the  sacra- 
ment of  the  new  birth  ;  that  is,  of  regenera- 
tion or  washing  with  water  in  the  Word  of 
life."  The  Confession  of  France  says  that 
in  it  "  we  are  ingrafted  into  Christ's  body  ; 
that,  being  washed  in  his  blood,  we  may  also 
be  renewed  to  holiness  of  life."  Knapp, 
whom  Dr.  Fuller  quotes  with  so  much  ap- 
probation, says,  "Baptism  represents  purifi- 
cation from  sins,  and  is  designed  to  promote 
this  end  in  the  one  who  is  baptized,"  Theol., 
vol.  2,  p.  510.  Flaccius  says,  "  Baptism, 
and  to  be  baptized,  means  an  internal  wash- 
ing, remission  of  sins  and  an  ever-continuing 
renewal ;"  Clavis  Scrip.  Sac,  Art.  Bapt.,  p. 
66. 

But    to    multiply    authorities    upon    this 
point    is   needless.     All    sound  theologians 


27 

admit  and  contend  that  baptism,  in  its  true 
acceptation,  is  not  a  mere  external  ordi- 
nance, but  a  sacrament  of  deep  spiritual 
import,  in  which  the  soul  is  absolved  from 
guilt  and  savingly  incorporated  with  Je- 
sus Christ. 

Let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  We  do 
not  maintain  the  doctrine  ordinarily  called 
"  Baptismal  Regeneration;"  i.  e.,  we  do 
not  believe  that  the  mere  application  of 
water  to  a  human  subject,  in  any  mode 
or  quantity,  can  wash  away  sins  or  work 
any  subjective  change  in  the  heart.  What 
we  affirm,  and  what  we  understand  to  be 
affirmed  in  these  quotations,  is,  that  bap- 
tism is  a  thing  for  the  soul  as  well  as  for  the 
body ;  that  it  fails  to  become  true  baptism 
unless  attended  or  followed  with  spiritual 
experience,  conformity  to  the  baptismal  vow, 
and  that  purity  of  heart  which  the  water 
typifies;  that  this  high  spiritual  conception 
of  this  sacrament  is  the  only  true  conception 
of  it,  and  that  in  this  respect,  it  carries  with 
it  the  virtue  and  efficacy  which  is  here  as- 
cribed   to    it.     It   is   a  thintr   which    looks 


23 

wholly  to  the  inner  man,  and  to  the  rela- 
tions and  experiences  of  the  spirit.  It  is 
'•'not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God." 

What,  we  would  then  ask,  has  quantify  of 
water  to  do  with  these  internal  and  spiritual 
things,  with  giving  a  man  a  good  conscience 
or  inspiring  him  with  a  new  life?  The 
whole  office  of  the  mere  icater  of  baptism  is 
to  represent  and  typify  an  inward  purifica- 
tion, a  renovation  of  the  soul,  without  which 
baptism  fails  to  be  baptism,  and  becomes  a 
mere  profitless,  dead  work.  And  surely  no 
man  in  his  senses  will  pretend  to  deny  that 
a  few  handfuls  of  water  from  the  crystal 
spring  can  as  well  symbolize  purity  as  tons 
of  the  contents  of  the  filthy  pools  or  stagnant 
cisterns  to  which  Baptists  ordinarily  invite 
their  converts.  To  those  who  can  dispute 
so  plain  a  proposition  we  have  no  reply  to 
make.  And  the  very  fact  that  baptism  looks 
to  a  purification  of  the  spirit  and  the  wash- 
ing away  of  sins,  renders  it  almost  impossi- 
ble to  believe  for  a  moment  that  the  validity 


29 

and  force  of  so  spiritual  a  sacrament  should 
be  made  to  depend  upon  the  depth  of  the  wa- 
ter used  in  its  outward  administration. 

These  considerations,  then,  weigh  so  much 
against  Dr.  Fuller's  system,  that  they  must 
be  conclusive  of  the  case,  unless  the  highest 
and  most  inflexible  proofs  can  be  produced 
to  the  contrary. 

What  sort  of  proofs  Dr.  Fuller  offers 
will  be  our  next  object  of  inquiry. 


30 


CHAPTER  III. 

Baptists  rest  every  thing  upon  the  interpreta- 
tion of  a  single  word — The  force  of  zo  in 
Greek — Pretended  testimony  of  Dr.  Por- 
son. 

In  proceeding  to  examine  the  nature  of 
the  proofs  upon  which  Dr.  Fuller  rests  the 
claims  of  his  prescriptive  system,  we  are  at 
once  struck  with  the  extraordinary  fact,  that 
his  whole  argument  comprises  nothing  but  a 
mere  philological  disquisition  upon  the  mean- 
ing  of  one  little  Greek  word.  The  entire 
eleven  chapters  devoted  to  this  part  of  the 
subject  are  occupied  with  the  one  single 
point,  what  does  haptizo  mean  ?  "  The  mat- 
ter before  us,"  says  he,  "  is  a  calm  philologi- 
cal inquiry  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  Greek 
word."  "The  simple  inquiry  is,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word  baptizo;"  p.  12. 
His  interpretation  of  this  simple  word  is  the 
alpha  and  omega — the  beginning,  middle 
and  end — the  body,  soul  and  spirit  of  all  he 
has  to  present  to  prove  that  ninety-five  hun- 


31 

dredths  of  Christ's  people  are  in  a  state  of 
downright  disobedience  to  their  Lord,  unfit 
for  membership  in  "our  churches,"  or  to 
approach  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  without 
any  sure  or  reliable  hope  of  final  salvation. 
This  certainly  is  very  remarkable,  that  the 
great  law  of  the  gospel,  and  a  point  involv- 
ing the  eternal  well-being  and  affecting  the 
hopes  of  millions  of  Christian  people,  should 
be  made  to  turn  upon  one  little  word.  Is  it 
not  an  astounding  doctrine,  that  in  a  divine 
revelation,  forming  a  library  in  itself,  a  mer- 
ciful and  condescending  God  should  have 
suspended  the  issues  of  his  sublime  scheme 
of  grace  upon  the  doubtful  import  of  one 
single  Greek  word!  According  to  the  an- 
cient prophets  the  way  of  salvation  is  an 
open  "  highway,"  in  which  "  wayfaring  men, 
though  fools,  shall  not  err;"  Is,  35:8 — so 
"plain  that  he  may  run  that  readeth  it ;" 
Hab.  2  :  2— and  laid  down  in  divers  forms, 
"  precept  upon  precept,  precept  upon  precept, 
line  upon  line,  line  upon  line,  here  a  little 
and  there  a  little;"  Isaiah  23  :  10.  But  it 
seems,  after  all,  that  we  must  take  Dr.  Ful. 


32 

ler's  say  so,  or  go  to  the  study  of  Greek, 
before  we  can  learn  it ;  that  the  whole  ques- 
tion lies  in  the  interpretation  of  a  Greek 
word ;  and  that  we  must  go  back  to  the  old 
heathen  writers  to  ascertain  whether  we  are 
Christians,  and  consult  the  pages  of  Orpheus, 
Heraclides  Ponticus,  Polybius,  the  Greek 
scholiasts  on  Euripides  and  Aratus,  Alcibi- 
ades,  Anacreon,  iEsop  and  Diodorus  Siculus, 
to  find  out  whether  or  not  we  have  a  good 
hope  for  heaven !  Let  the  reader  but  look 
at  it,  and  consider  the  real  nature  of  the 
question  and  the  real  character  of  the  testi- 
mony adduced  to  decide  it,  and  he  will  find 
that  Dr.  Fuller's  argument  bears  an  absurd- 
ity  upon  its  face  of  which  we  would  suppose 
no  sane  man  with  a  fair  mind  could  possibly 
be  guilty.  But  as  all  this  contains  nothing 
very  favorable  to  the  Baptist  theory,  it  is  of 
course  "  impertinent,''-  and  we  leave  it  to  take 
a  glance  at  those  philological  processes  by 
which  Dr.  Fuller  has  "ascertained"  that 
"  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  has  no 
other  meaning." 

All  agree  that  baptizo  is  a  derivation  of 


33 

bapto;  and  until  Dr.  Fuller  told  us  differ- 
ently, we  had  always  supposed  that  the  true 
method  of  reaching  the  meaning  of  a  sec- 
ondary word,  was  to  find  out  the  signification 
of  its  root.  But  it  appears  now,  that  in  "  a 
calm  philological  inquiry  as  to  the  meaning 
of  a  Greek  word,"  upon  which  Dr.  Fuller 
suspends  such  vast  interests,  "we  have  noth 
ing  to  do  with  bapto;"  p.  12.  Well,  to  Rich 
ard  Fuller  belongs  the  honor  of  having  dis 
covered  this  new  canon  of  interpretation 
How  far  it  serves  to  show  his  claim  to  relia 
bility  as  an  expounder  of  the  meaning  of 
baptizo,  we  leave  the  reader  to  determine. 
We  pass  it  without  additional  comment,  in- 
asmuch as  he  himself  departs  from  his  own 
canon  in  the  very  next  paragraph,  and  at- 
tempts to  make  capital  for  his  cause  by  as- 
suring us,  that  "in  the  Greek  language  the 
addition  of  zo  rather  enforces  than  diminish- 
es the  primitive  verb;"  thus,  "sophos,  wise  ; 
sophizo,  to  make  wise ;  bapto,  to  dip  ;  bap- 
tizo, to  make  one  dip,  that  is,  to  immerse." 
Hellenic  sages,  hear;  soplios  a  verb!  and 
sophizo  a  word  enforcing  the  primitive  verb 
4 


34 

by  the  addition  of  zo  t  What  an  interpreter, 
to  show  the  meaning  of  a  Greek  word  which, 
if  we  are  to  believe  Dr.  Fuller,  concerns  the 
Christian  character  and  eternal  hopes  of  al- 
most all  Christendom  itself!  Of  his  other 
examples  to  prove  his  theory  concerning  the 
force  of  zo,  we  shall  speak  presently.  For 
the  reader  unacquainted  with  Greek,  it  may 
be  proper  to  state  that  sophos  is  an  adjective, 
and  that  bapto  and  baptize  are  both  verbs; 
so  that  to  have  a  complete  analogy  of  the  re- 
lation between  bapto  and  baptizo,  verbs  alone 
can  be  taken  into  account.  But  whether  we 
take  radical  verbs  and  their  derivatives,  or 
take  nouns,  adjectives,  or  any  other  parts  of 
speech,  and  the  verbs  ending  in  zo  derived 
from  them,  we  shall  find  no  earthly  founda- 
tion for  the  force  which  Dr.  Fuller  is  pleased 
to  assign  to  the  affix  of  zo;  concerning  which 
he  modestly  tells  us  that  great  "  authors  only 
betray  their  innocence  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage." 

So  far  as  our  humble  attainments  in  Greek 
extend,  and  according  to  all  the  lexicograph- 
ers we  have  been  able  to  consult,  the  addi- 


35 

tion  of  zo  is  a  mere  variation  of  the  original 
word  without  a  variation  of  the  meaning, — 
as  pnigo,  pnigizo,  to  strangle  or  choke  ;  eu- 
oreo,  euoriazo,  to  be  careless  or  unconcerned  ; 
biao,  biazo,  to  force  or  compel, — or  else  it  sig- 
nifies a  process  or  condition,  of  approximation 
to  the  action  or  thing  signified  in  the  original 
word.  Take  the  following  illustrations  from 
nouns,  adjectives  and  verbs.  First,  nouns 
— phos,  light;  photizo,  to  enlighten,  or  put  in 
process  of  becoming  light ;  eunouchos,  a  eu- 
nuch ;  eunoucliho,  to  make  a  eunuch,  or  to 
put  in  process  of  becoming  a  eunuch  ;  guna, 
genitive  gunaikos,  a  woman  ;  gunaikizo,  to 
render  womanish,  or  put  in  process  of  becom- 
ing like  a  woman  ;  doxa,  glory ;  doxazo,  to 
glorify,  or  put  in  process  of  becoming  glori- 
ous ;  paraskeua,  a  state  of  preparation  ;  par- 
askeuazo,  to  make  preparation,  or  put  in  pro- 
cess of  becoming  prepared.  Second,  adjec- 
tives— katharos,  clean  ;  katharizo,  to  cleanse, 
or  put  in  process  of  becoming  clean  ;  phoin- 
ios,  red  as  blood  ;  plioinizo,  to  redden,  or  put 
in  process  of  becoming  red.  Third,  verbs — 
and  here  the  instances  are  perfectly  analo- 


36 

gous  to  baplo,  baptizo;  plouteo,  to  be  rich ; 
ploutizo,  to  enrich,  or  put  in  process  of  be- 
coming rich ;  melaneo,  to  be  black  ;  melon- 
izo,  to  be  blackish,  or  in  a  condition  verging 
towards  black ;  phluo,  to  overflow  as  boiling 
water  escaping  from  the  kettle;  plxluzo,  to 
bubble  up  so  as  to  tend  towards  an  overflow. 
From  these  examples  it  would  then  seem, 
that  the  addition  of  zo  in  Greek  corresponds 
exactly  to  the  English  terminations  ize  and 
ishf  which  most  likely  have  taken  their  ori. 
gin  from  it ;  e.  g.,  scandal,  scandalize  ;  blue, 
bluish;  italic,  italicise;  wolf,  wolfish,  &c. 
Hence,  if  bapto  means  to  dye,  color  or  tinge, 
(as  Dr.  Fuller  agrees,)  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo would  be  about  the  same,  or  to  put  in 
process  of  becoming  dyed,  colored  or  tinged  ; 
if  it  means  to  wash,  as  Pickering,  Grove, 
Dunbar,  Donegan,  Schrevelius,  and  Park- 
hurst  say  it  does  mean,  the  signification  of 
baptizo  would  be,  to  put  in  process  or  condi- 
tion of  being  washed  ;  and  if  it  means  to  dip 
or  submerge,  then  baptizo  would  mean  to  put 
in  process  or  condition  verging  towards  a  dip- 
ping or  submersion — the  signification  of  the 


37 

word  with  zo  almost  universally  falling  shoi\ 
of  the  meaning  of  the  original  word. 

But,  says  Dr.  Fuller,  "Oikeo,  to  dwell; 
oikizo,  to  make  one  dwell ;  sophos,  wise  ;  so- 
phizo,  to  make  wise  ;  sophroneo,  to  be  of  a 
sound  mind  ;  sophronizo,  to  make  one  of  a 
sound  mind.  And  just  so,  bapto,  to  dip  ;  bap- 
tizo}  to  make  one  dip,  that  is  to  immerse!'" 
The  reader  will  doubtless  feel  a  reasonable 
curiosity  to  know  how  the  phrase  "to  make  one 
dip"  can  be  made  synonymous  with  the  word 
"immerse;"  but  his  ingenuity  will  be  still 
further  taxed  to  find  out  where  Dr.  Fuller 
obtained  some  of  the  definitions  he  has  given 
to  the  Greek  words  just  named.  But  as  Dr. 
Fuller  seems  to  have  access  to  books  which 
no  other  man  ever  saw,  (such,  for  instance, 
as  the  Fifth  Book  of  Calvin's  Institutes,  quo. 
ted  on  page  21 ,)  it  L  not  to  be  thought  strange 
that  he  should  have  information  on  these  sub- 
jects from  sources  not  within  the  reach  of 
common  Christians.  One  thing  is  certain, 
that  the  definitions  which  those  honored  men, 
who  have  ever  stood  as  unimpeached  inter- 
preters  of  the  Greek  language,  have  assign- 
4* 


38 

ed  to  the  words  upon  which  Dr.  Fuller  has 
rested  his  theory,  do  not  altogether  accord 
with  those  which  he  has  given.  Of  course, 
in  Dr.  Fuller's  estimation,  those  venerable 
lexicographers  are  to  be  blamed,  just  as  the 
translators  of  our  English  Bible.  But,  in  a 
matter  involving  the  Christian  character  and 
final  salvation  of  millions  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, most  persons  would  doubtless  prefer  to 
take  our  ordinary  lexicographers,  and  our 
good  old  English  Bible,  than  to  rely  upon 
him,  with  all  his  unknown  books.  Let  the 
reader  open  any  standard  lexicon,  and  he 
will  find  that  oikeo  means  to  inhabit,  and  oi- 
Jcizo  to  render  habitable,  or  to  put  in  process 
of  becoming  inhabited.  Sophos  means  skill- 
ful, and  sophizo  to  render  skillful,  or  to  put 
in  process  of  becoming  skillful.  Sophroneo 
means  to  be  of  a  sound  mind,  prudent  or  dis- 
creet, and  sophronizo  to  render  prudent  or 
discreet,  or  to  put  in  process  (as  by  chastise- 
ment and  discipline)  of  becoming  prudent  or 
discreet.  What,  then,  becomes  of  "  bapto  to 
dip,  baptizo  to  make  one  dip,  that  is,  to  im- 
merse ?"      The   very   examples   which  Dr. 


39 

Fuller  has  cited  confute  his  theory,  and  show 
that  the  value  of  the  addition  of  zo,  in  Greek, 
does  not  enforce  the  primitive  verb,  "but  sig- 
nifies a  condition  or  process  only  approxima- 
tive towards  the  action  or  thing  signified  in 
the  original  word.  And  as  his  examples  fail 
to  bear  him  out,  his  theory,  of  course,  falls 
to  the  ground. 

But  if  we  were  even  to  grant  the  analogies 
which  he  has  attempted  to  draw,  it  must  not 
be  overlooked  that  to  dip  is  not  the  entire  or 
only  meaning  of  bapto.  According  to  his 
own  showing  it  means  "to  tinge  as  dyers." 
In  that  case  baptizo  would  signify  to  make 
one  tinge  as  dyers  !  Pickering  and  Dunbar 
give  as  a  meaning  of  bapto,  "  to  be  lost  as  a 
ship;''  baptizo  would  then  mean,  to  make  one 
lost  as  a  ship!  Liddell  and  Scott  and  Dun- 
bar assign  as  a  meaning  of  bapto,  '-to  dye 
the  hair;''  baptizo  would  then  mean,  to  make 
one  dye  the  hair!  Pickering,  Dunbar  and 
others  say  that  bapto  means,  "  to  fill  by  draw- 
ing up;"  baptizo  would  then  mean,  to  make 
one  fill  by  drawing  up  !  And  Grove,  Schreve- 
lius  and  Scapula  give  to  sprinkle  as  a  mean- 


40 

ing  of  hapto  ;  baptizo  would  then  mean,  to 
make  one  sprinkle !!  How  edifying  is  the 
operation  of  this  Fullerian  law  of  analogy  ! 
How  admirably  it  proves  that  "  baptizo  sig- 
nifies to  immerse,  and  has  no  other  mean- 
ing !"  And  yet  this  is  the  sort  of  "argu- 
ment" by  which  we  are  to  be  unchurched 
and  convicted  of  unfitness  to  have  a  place  at 
the  Lord's  table. 

The  next  item  in  this  "  calm  philological 
inquiry"  is  in  the  shape  of  an  authority  from 
that  Corypheus  of  Greek  scholars,  Dr.  Por- 
son ;  but  which  Dr.  Fuller,  as  a  lawyer, 
knows,  could  not  be  admitted  in  a  court  of 
justice,  even  in  a  case  involving  no  more 
than  dollars  and  cents. 

The  story  runs  thus:  that  a  certain  Mr. 
Newman  accompanied  an  acquaintance  in  a 
friendly  call  upon  Dr.  Porson,  just  a  few 
months  previous  to  his  death;  that  something 
was  said  in  that  interview  about  some  Greek 
words;  that  after  Dr.  Porson's  death  this  Mr. 
Newman  wrote  a  letter  to  some  unknown  par- 
ty, which  letter,  in  some  unknown  way,  came 
into  the  hands  of  a  rabid  Baptist  controver- 


41 

sialist,  Mr.  Carson,  and  was  by  him  'pub- 
lished,  and  from  him  quoted  by  Dr.  Fuller; 
that  it  is  said,  in  said  letter,  that  Dr.  Porson 
said,  "that  if  there  be  a  difference  (between 
bapto  and  baptizo,)  he  should  take  the  latter  to 
be  the  strongest ;"  and  that  Mr.  Carson  said, 
that  Mr.  Newman  said,  that  Dr.  Porson  said, 
"that  it  (baptizo)  signifies  a  total  immer- 
sion !"  This  is  the  whole  story.  Is  it  to  be 
received  as  evidence  in  "  a  calm  philological 
inquiry  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  Greek  word  V 
Are  we  to  decide  a  question  of  eternal  life 
or  eternal  death  by  testimony  which  not  a 
judge  in  the  land  would  permit  to  go  before 
a  jury  1  And  even  admitting  that  this  testi- 
mony is  to  be  relied  on,  that  Dr.  Fuller  has 
quoted  it  correctly,  that  Mr.  Carson  pub- 
lished it  as  it  was  written,  that  Mr.  Newman 
was  accurate  in  his  recollections  and  report- 
ed them  faithfully,  and  that  the  whole  thing 
is  certainly  and  surely  Dr.  Porson's  opinion, 
it  will  be  perceived  that  the  opinion  is  only 
given  hypothetically,  "  if  there  be  a  differ- 
ence," so  and  so;  leaving  us  to  infer  that 
there  was  strong  doubt  in  Dr.  Porson's  mind 


42 

as  to  whether  baptizo  does  not  mean  just  the 
same  as  baplo,  to  which  he  assigned  the  sig- 
nification of  "tinge."  And  that  he  should 
also  assign  to  it  the  meaning  of  "  a  total  im- 
mersion,"  is  nothing  more  than  what  all 
parties  are  ready  to  admit;  the  question  be- 
ing, not  whether  baptizo  ever  means  to  im- 
merse, but  whether  it  never  means  any  thing 
else,  and  whether  this  is  the  sense  to  be 
assigned  to  it  where  it  is  used  to  designate 
the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism?  If  it 
will  be  any  consolation  to  Dr.  Fuller,  or  of 
any  service  to  his  cause,  we  here  admit, 
freely  and  without  hesitation,  that  baptizo 
often  does  mean  to  immerse — to  submerge — 
to  put  under  the  water — to  put  under  the 
water  never  to  come  out  again — and  to  over- 
whelm and  cover  up  in  the  very  bottom  of 
the  sea,  to  remain  there  till  the  sounding  of 
the  archangel's  trumpet.  But  that  this  is 
its  meaning  when  applied  to  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  is  what  remains  for  Dr.  Fuller  to 
prove,  is  what  no  man  has  ever  yet  proven, 
and  what  no  man  ever  can  prove. 

So  much  then  for  the  second  step  in  Dr. 


43 

Fuller's  "calm  philological  inquiry."  Que- 
ry :  Has  the  reader  found  any  thing  as  yet 
to  prove  that  Christ's  command  to  baptize  is 
a  command  to  immerse  and  nothing  else  ? 
But  we  must  pursue  the  Doctor's  ''argu- 
ment," for  surely, 

"'Tis  the  rarest  argument  of  wonder, 
That  hath  shot  out  in  our  later  times' 


44 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Exjrfanations — "  Justice  " — Reply  to    him — 
A  digression. 

So  much  of  this  Review  as  is  contained  in 
the  preceding  chapters,  had  already  gone  to 
press,  and  appeared  before  the  public  through 
the  "  Lutheran  Observer,"  when  the  sub- 
joined communication  came  into  our  hands. 
The  write*  of  it,  whom  we  take  to  be  Dr. 
Fuller  himself,  wishes  to  correct  a  statement 
which  we  made,  relative  to  Dr.  Fuller's 
blunder  in  referring  us  for  one  of  his  quota- 
tions to  a  book  which  has  no  existence.  The 
following  is  a  copy  of  the  paper.  It  is 
directed  to  the  Editor  of  the  Lutheran  Ob- 
server, and  was  designed  for  insertion  in 
that  periodical. 

Baltimore,  April  5,  1854. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir: — I  am  following  your 

correspondent's   Review   of  Dr.   Fuller   on 

Baptism.     He   charges  that,   on  p.   21,  the 

Doctor  quotes  "  The  Fifth  Book  of  Calvin's 


45 

Institutes."  II  have  turned  to  Dr.  Fuller's 
work,  p.  21,  third  edition,  and  find  no  such 
quotation.  It  is  quoted  Book  4,  ch.  15,  p. 
19.  I  am  sure  you  will,  in  justice,  insert 
this.  I  hope  your  correspondent  will  use 
the  revised  edition,  as  he  seeks  truth,  and 
not  the  blunders  of  the  Press,  especially 
when  they  have  been  corrected. 

Justice. 

The  receipt  of  this  paper  furnished  us 
tangible  evidence,  that  our  review  was  ex- 
citing attention,  and  producing  uneasiness. 
And  as  we  were  willing  to  give  "Justice" 
the  benefit  of  his  explanation,  and  designed 
to  take  no  unfair  advantages  of  Dr  Fuller, 
we  at  once  wrote  to  the  Editor,  for  insertion 
in  the  Lutheran  Observer,  the  following 
statement,  under  the  head  of  Addenda  to  our 
Review, 

Mr.  Editor, — I  have  received  the  article 
you  did  me  the  favor  to  forward  to  me,  dated 
"  Baltimore,  April  5,  1854,*'  and  signed 
"Justice,"  in  which  the  writer  says,  that 
the  Third  Edition  of  Fuller's  book  does  not 
contain  the  reference  to  the  "Fifth  Book  of 
5 


46 

Calvin's  Institutes,"  and  asks  that  this  may 
be  stated.  Certainly,  if  the  statement  will 
be  of  any  avail,  let  it  be  made.  Let  justice 
be  done.  When  my  second  article  was 
penned,  the  Third  Edition  of  Fuller  on  Bap- 
tism was  as  much  unknown  to  me  as  the 
"  Fifth  Book  of  Calvin's  Institutes."  The 
review  professes  to  be  a  review  of  the  Second 
and  not  of  the  Third  edition.  And  neither 
Dr.  Fuller  nor  his  friend,  will  dare  to  say 
that  the  reference  to  Calvin  as  stated,  is  not 
in  the  edition  under  review. 

"  Justice"  complains  that  I  have  not  used 
"  the  revised  edition."  That  is  exactly  what 
I  supposed  I  was  doing.  A  second  edition 
of  a  book  ought  to  be  considered  a  revised 
edition  surely,  and  the  second  edition  is  the 
one  I  had  undertakpn  to  review. 

After  much  effort  I  have  now  secured  the 
Third — "  the  revised  edilion."  By  the  way, 
how  does  it  happen,  that  "  Fuller  on  Baptism 
and  Communion,"  which  has  now  reached 
the  third  edition,  is  not  for  sale  in  the  book 
stores  of  Baltimore,  where  the  author  re- 
sides?     A  friend  whom  I  engaged  to  procure 


47 

it,  tells/ne  that  he  was  half  a  day  or  more 
finding  a  copy.  Is  it  used  by  Baptists  only 
in  a  private  way  to  gull  the  weak  and  unin- 
formed ?  Fortunately  I  now  have  "  the  re- 
vised edition"  and  shall  hereafter  use  it 
alone.  It  bears  the  date,  "Charleston,  S3.  C. 
1854."  My  review  was  commenced  about 
the  first  of  February,  1854;  and  yet  "Jus- 
tice" conplains  that  I  used  the  second  edition, 
allowing  but  one  month  for  the  publication  of 
the  book  and  its  shipment  in  mid-winter 
from  a  far  off  city  to  Baltimore,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  its  reach- 
ing my  humble  retreat !  The  spirit  of 
Egyptian  task-masters  still  survives. 

Well,  true  enough,  in  this  edition  of  1854, 
the  reference  to  the  Fifth  Book  of  Calvin's 
Institutes  is  rescinded.  We  are  glad  of  it. 
It  was  an  ugly  thing  to  be  paraded  around 
in  two  entire  editions.  We  now  have  in  its 
place,  "  Lib.  4,  chap.  15,  sec.  19."  This 
looks  a  little  more  like  the  thing ;  but  it 
does  not  much  help  the  matter.  The  quota- 
tion for  which  Dr.  Fuller  refers  to  this  place, 
is  in  these  words — "  The  word  baptizo  sig- 


48 

nifies  lo  immerse,  and  the  rile  of  immersion 
was  performed  by  the  ancient  church." 
Who  is  at  fault  now,  in  this  c<  revised  edi- 
tion ?"  The  words,  "  the  rite"  are  not  in 
Calvin's  version  of  this  passage.  Calvin 
never  could  have  spoken  of  "  the  rite"  of 
immersion.  But  Calvin  does  say,  and  in 
this  very  place,  and  in  this  very  paragraph, 
what  Dr.  Fuller  did  not  find  to  his  purpose 
to  quote,  tha:  "  whether  the  person  who  is 
baptized  be  wholly  immersed,  and  whether 
thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water  be  only 
poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  import- 
ance; churches  ought  to  be  left  at  liberty  in 
this  respect."  Institutes  of  the  Christian 
Religion,  by  John  Calvin;  Lib.  4.  ch.  15, 
sec.   19. 

By  inserting  this,  you  will  at  once  do  jus- 
tice to  Dr.  Fuller,  Calvin,  and  myself. 
Very  thankfully, 

Fidelis  Scrutator. 

We  give  this  as  a  little  episode,  not  worth 
much  in  itself,  but  which  may  serve  to  ex- 
plain why  we  set  out  to  Review  the  second, 
and    not   the  third   edition  of   Dr.  Fuller's 


49 

book,  and  at  the  same  time  give  him  the 
advantage  of  the  fact,  that  his  reference  to 
Calvin's  Institutes  in  the  third  edition  is  to 
the  fourth  book,  and  not  to  a  non-existent 
fifth  book,  as  in  the  two  previous  editions. 

From  this  out,  however,  our  Review  is  to 
be  taken  as  a  Review  of  the  Third  Edition 
of  Dr.  Fuller's  boob — the  edition  which 
"Justice,"  though  nobody  else,  styles  "  the 
revised  edition."  We  shall  show  that  it 
needs  still  another,  and  much  more  thorough 
revision. 

So  much  for  our  digression. 


5* 


50 


CHAPTER  V. 

A  plain  matter — Different  meanings  to  the 
same  ivords — Baptizo  as  used  by  the  hea- 
then— Has  other  meanings  beside  that  of  a 
total  immersion — Testimony  of  lexicogra- 
phers— Instances  from  the  christian  Fath- 
ers. 

Our  friend,  "  Richard  Fuller,"  having  in- 
sinuated,  in'the  way  that  we  have  exposed, 
that  baptizo  means  to  immerse,  now  endeav- 
ors to  fix  this  upon  the  mind  of  the  reader 
as  its  only  meaning.  The  manner  in  which 
he  does  this  is  hy  giving  us  the  bold,  unqual- 
ified and  naked  assumption,  that  no  one  word 
can  have  more  than  one  meaning.  "  The 
assertion."  says  he,  '-'that  baptizo  has  three 
different  meanings,  only  proves  how  strange- 
ly controversy  can  blind  the  mind  to  the 
plainest  things."  "  To  say  that  a  word 
means  three  distinct  things  is  to  say  that  it 
means  neither  of  them.  .  And  this  is  true 
of  the  most  general  words."  "The  puerili- 
ties of  which  men  are  guilty  on  trUs  plain 
matter  are  surprising  ;"  p.  14. 


51 

A  "plain  matter"  it  certainly  is ;  and  how 
a  fair  and  honest  man  can  thus  contradict  so 
"plain  a  matter"  as,  that  a  word  may  have 
more  than  one  meaning,  we  cannot  under- 
stand. Dr.  Fuller  knows,  he  must  know, 
that  there  are  multitudes  of  words,  each  of 
which  has  various  shades  of  signification  and 
very  different  meanings.  He  has  told  us, 
moreover,  that  "  no  one  ought  to  substitute 
for  proof  his  own  assertion."  And  yet  we 
have  here,  as  an  essential  link  in  his  "ar- 
gument," nothing  but  assertion,  unaccom- 
panied with  the  merest  shadow  of  proof,  and 
as  far  from  truth  as  heaven  is  from  earth. 
It  seems  like  pedantry  and  puerility  to  reply 
to  an  error  so  palpable  and  egregious;  but 
we  are  sometimes  called  on  to  prove  that 
two  and  two  make  four.  Let  the  reader 
look  at  the  following  instances  of  the  differ- 
ent meanings  of  the  same  words  selected 
from  a  dozen  languages. 

The  Hebrew  word  bara  means  to  create, 
to  fatten,  and  to  cut  off.  The  Greek  word 
lego  means  to  speak,  to  choose,  to  reckon  up, 
and    to  lie   down    to   rest;   and   Shrevelius 


52 

assigns  hallo  seventeen  meanings.  The  Chal- 
dee  word  barak  means  to  bless,  to  salute,  to 
bend  the  knee,  to  dig,  to  plow,  and  to  set  slips 
for  propagation.  The  Russian  word  uberayer 
means  to  put  in  order,  to  mow  or  reap,  and 
to  dress  the  hair.  The  Arabic  word  faraka 
means  to  separate,  to  withdraw,  to  lay  open, 
to  cast  out,  and  to  immerse.  The  Italian 
word  parare  means  to  prepare,  to  garnish,  to 
parry,  to  repair,  and  to  stop  a  horse.  The 
Dutch  word  heelen  means  to  heat,  to  name, 
and  to  command.  The  German  word  ver- 
messen  means  to  measure,  to  measure  wrong, 
to  dare,  to  arrogate,  to  swear  or  protest  with 
solemn  asseverations,  and  to  profess  with 
high  and  boasting  words.  The  Spanish 
word  parar  means  to  prepare,  to  stop,  detain, 
prevent,  to  end,  to  treat  or  use  ill,  and  to 
stake  at  cards.  The  Latin  word  euro  means 
to  take  care  of,  to  provide,  to  refresh  one's 
self  with  meat,  to  cook  meat,  to  bring  to 
pass,  to  command  in  war,  to  pay  homage  to, 
to  cure,  and  to  expiate  or  atone.  The  French 
word  titer  means  to  draw,  to  hee  or  rid  from, 
to  reap,  to  deduce,  to  extract,  to  stretch,  and 


53 

to  shoot ;  and  loner,  to  hire,  to  lease,  to  praise, 
and  to  applaud.  The  English  word  spring 
means  a  leap,  a  part  of  a  watch,  one  of  the 
seasons,  and  a  fountain  of  water.  Cleave 
means  to  adhere  and  to  divide.  And  Web- 
ster  assigns  to  the  word  turn  thirly-two 
transitive  and  twenty  intransitive  significa- 
tions. But,  according  to  Dr.  Fuller,  it  is 
"puerility"  and  "folly"  to  assert  that  a  word 
can  have  more  than  one  meaning  !  Is  this 
the  man  to  conduct  a  "  calm  philological  in- 
quiry," by  which  to  convict  the  Christian 
world  of  disobedience  to  a  positive  command 
of  God  ?  Is  this  the  sort  of  proof  to  show 
that  baptizo  has  no  other  meaning  but  im- 
merse ?  Alas!  what  "an  argument"  "in 
a  matter  of  such  moment  as  obedience  to 
Jesus  Christ !" 

But,  as  Dr.  Fuller  persists  in  the  assertion, 
that  "  baptizo  always  denotes  a  total  immer- 
sion," and  "has  no  other  meaning,"  we  pro- 
ceed to  show  that  he  is  as  far  from  the  truth 
in  this  particular  instance,  as  in  the  general 
rule 

The  primary  meaning  of  baptizo,  as  used 


54 

by  the  ancient  heathen  Greeks,  is  to  dip.  This 
is  the  first  signification  assigned  to  it  by  the 
great  majority  of  lexicographers.  But  the 
word  dip  does  not  always  and  absolutely 
mean  a  total  immersion.  It  means  also  to 
moisten  ;  to  wet ;  to  incline  downward  as  the 
magnetic  needle ;  to  engage  partially  in  a 
thing,  as  "  He  was  a  little  dipt  in  the  rebel- 
lion of  the  commons;"  to  enter  slightly,  as 
to  dip  into  a  volume  of  history  ;  to  engage  in 
to  a  small  extent,  as  to  dip  into  the  funds ;  to 
enter  or  pierce  with  the  extreme  point  of 
any  thing,  as  to  dip  the  end  of  the  finger.  We 
shall  show,  however,  that  even  to  dip  is  not 
the  exclusive  and  only  meaning  of  bapiizo, 
much  less  a  total  immersion. 

Our  first  reference  is  to  standard  lexicog- 
raphers. 

Pickering  defines  baptizo,  to  dip;  to  im- 
merse; to  sink;  to  overwhelm  ;  to  wet ;  to 
wash;  to  make  drunk ;  to  cleanse.  Dunbar 
defines  it,  to  dip  ;  to  immerse  ;  to  sink  ;  to 
soak  ;  to  wash.  Liddell  and  Scott,  to  dip  re- 
peatedly; to  dip  under;  to  bathe;  to  wet ;  to 
pour  upon ;  to  drench  ;  to  overwhelm,   as  a 


55 

boy  with  questions  ;  to  dip  a  vessel ;  to  draw 
water.  Grove,  to  dip ;  to  immerse ;  to  icash  ; 
to  cleanse;  to  purify  ;  to  depress;  to  hum- 
ble; to  overwhelm;  to  wash  one's  self;  to 
bathe;  to  faint  ;  to  be  dejected.  Donegan, 
to  immerse  repeatedly  in  a  liquid  ;  to  satu- 
rate ;  to  drench  with  wine ;  to  confound  total- 
ly. Montfaucon,  in  his  concordance  of  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  trans* 
lates  it  by  immergo,  to  plunge,  to  flounce,  to 
drench  ;  tingo,  to  dye,  color,  stain,  sprinkle, 
imbrue,  wash,  paint \;  and  perturbo,  to  disturb, 
trouble,  disorder,  distract.  Schleusner,  in 
his  Thesaurus,  translates  it  by  immergo,  to 
plunge, flounce,  drench;  iniingo,  to  dip,  dye, 
color  ;  and  perturbo,  to  disturb,  trouble,  dis- 
order, distract.  Schrevelius  renders  it  mer- 
go,  to  dip  in,  immerse,  overwhelm,  ruin,  de- 
stroy ;  abluo,  to  wash  clean,  to  wash  away, 
purify,  blot  out ;  and  lavo,  to  wash,  rinse, 
bathe,  besprinkle,  purge,  expiate,  throw  of. 
Scapula  also  translates  it  with  abluo  and  lavo; 
whilst  Parkhurst  gives  it  six  meanings.  It 
is  true  that  a  certain  Baptist  ccntrovertist 
"  blames  him"  for  it ;    but  he,  nevertheless, 


56 

was  a  distinguished  and  learned  old  divine, 
a  profound  linguist,  the  author  of  some  of  our 
very  best  lexicons,  and,  we  suppose,  entitled 
to  as  much  respect  as  his  censors,  whether 
in  the  shape  of  the  bombastic  Carson,  or  the 
insinuating  Puller. 

Here  then  we  have  ten  or  twelve  of  our 
great  standard  lexicographers,  depending  for 
iheir  reputation  upon  the  accuracy  with 
which  they  have  translated  the  Greek  Ian- 
guage,  each  one  giving  various  and  different 
meanings  to  the  word  in  question.  Some  of 
them  lived  centuries  ago,  even  before  Dr. 
Fuller  or  his  particular  denomination  had  a 
being,  and  all  of  them  are  acknowledged  to 

be  lights  of  Greek   learning.     And  yet  we 

-  •  ,  ■  ■  % 
are  now  to  set  them  all  aside  as  "  school- 
boys," teaching  nothing  but  "puerilities;" 
and  that  at  or  on  the  mere  ipse  dixit  of  Dr. 
Fuller,  that  b&pUzo  ahoays  means  to  immerse 
and  has  no  other  meaning.— A  te  pelo  ut  ali- 
qidd  imperfids  iemyoris  hide  cogitaiioni. 

But  we  will  not  stop  with  the  testimony  of 
the  legicographers.  Dr.  Fuller  reiterates 
that  baptizo  never  means  any  thing  but  im- 


57 

merse,  and  with  an  air  of  triumph  chal- 
lenges the  world  to  produce  testimony  to  the 
contrary.  He  shall  have  it.  He  has  it  al- 
ready. But  we  will  furnish  it  to  him  in 
still  more  copious  profusion,  by  the  produc- 
tion of  passages  in  which  it  is  impossible  to 
assign  to  baptize  the  meaning  of  immerse. 

Dr.  Fuller  will  certainly  agree  with  what 
his  predecessors  have  said,  that  the  native 
Greeks  must  understand  their  own  language 
better  than  foreigners.  He  must  also  admit 
that  the  earlier  Christian  teachers  were  bet- 
ter prepared  to  testify  to  the  true  scope  of 
the  meaning  of  baptizo  than  the  modern 
controversialist,  committed  to  the  support  of 
a  sectarian  system.  To  the  writings  of  these 
earlier,  and  mostly  Greek,  Christian  writers, 
we  therefore  make  our  appeal  ;  humbly  pre- 
suming that  the  old  poets  and  philosophers, 
who  lived  before  the  Saviour's  time,  did  not 
very  thoroughly  comprehend  in  what  sense 
words  were  used  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

The  first  passage  we  adduce  is  from  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus,  p.  387,  Lugduni  Batav. 
1616.  He  is  speaking  on  the  subject  of 
6 


58 

baptism,  and  refers  to  some  passages  in  Ho« 
mer  to  show  that  traces  of  the  typical  purifi- 
cations of  Moses  are  to  be  found  even  in  the 
heathen  world.  His  language  is,  "Penel- 
ope, having  washed  herself  and  having  on 
her  body  clean  apparel,  goes  to  prayer ; 
Odys.,  4  :  759.*  Telemachus,  having  wash- 
ed his  hands  in  the  hoary  sea,  prayed  to 
Minerva  ;  Odys.,  2:  261. f  This  may  be  an 
image  of  baptism  handed  down  from  Moses 
to  the  poets;  for  this  was  the  custom  of  the 
Jews,  that  they  also  should  be  often  baptized 
(baptizesthai)  upon  their  couch." 

The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  recline  on 
couches  during  meals.  These  couches  were 
ordinarily  large  enough  to  hold  from  three 
to  five  persons.  And  Clement  here  tells  us 
that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  be 
frequently  baptized  whilst  thus  reclining  at 
meals.  And  are  we  to  be  told  that  four  or 
five  men,  upon  a  couch  at  dinner,  were  ac- 

*  Pope  has  it  thus— 

"  She  bathes,  and  robed,  the  sacred  dome  ascends. 

And  thus  the  queen  invokes  Minerva's  aid."'—  Od.  4:  1001. 

+  "There,  as  the  waters  o'er  Ms  hands  he  shed. 

The  royal  suppliant  to  Minerva  prayed."-— -Pope**  Od.  2:  295. 


59 

customed  to  be  immersed  several  times  whilst 
partaking  of  their  meal  ?  Are  we  to  imagine 
pulleys  fixed  over  the  various  couches  in  the 
dining-room,  with  ropes  attached  to  the  cor- 
ners  and  a  baptistery  under  the  floor,  with 
trapdoors  opening  under  the  suspended  guests 
to  let  couches,  men  and  all  down  under  the 
water  every  now  and  then  as  the  eating  pro- 
gressed ?  And  besides  the  utter  violence 
and  absurdity  of  such  a  supposition,  the  sim- 
ple washing  (hiidraino)  of  Penelope,  in  which 
no  mode  is  indicated,  and  the  mere  wetting 
of  the  hands  (nipto)  of  Telemachus,  which 
Clement  here  gives  as  corresponding  to  the 
Jewish  purifications  at  meals,  completely  and 
inevitably  exclude  the  idea  that  the  baptism 
of  which  he  is  speaking  was  "a  total  im- 
mersion." 

Our  next  passage  is  from  Justin  Martyr, 
p.  164,  London,  1772.  "  What  is  the  profit 
of  that  baptism  which  purifies  the  flesh  and 
the  body  alone  ?  Be  baptized  as  to  your  souls, 
from  anger  and  from  covetousness,  from  envy 
and  from  hatred,  and  lo!  your  body  is  pure." 
Does  baptism  here  mean  a  total  immersion  ? 


60 

Is  immersion  for  the  purpose  of  purity  a  thing 
that  can  be  predicated  of  the  mind  or  spirit? 
The  mind  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  im- 
mersed in  cares,  troubles,  and  pollution  ;  but 
is  it,  or  can  it  ever  be,  spoken  of  as  immersed 
for  mental  purity  ?  Can  we  speak  of  being 
immersed/r07/i  (apo)  anger,  and  from  covet- 
ousness,  from  envy,  and  from  hatred  ?  Un- 
questionably, the  sense  is  not  immersion,  but 
to  cleanse  and  purify. 

Origen,  in  his  Seventh  Homily  on  the  6th 
of  Judges,  says,  "  The  outpouring  of  his 
(Christ's)  blood  is  denominated  a  baptism" 
Is  the  outpouring  of  the  Saviour's  blood  an 
immersion  ?     How  can  it  be? 

The  same  father,  in  his  notes  on  Matt. 
20  :  21,  22,  says  also,  that  "Martyrdom  is 
rightfully  called  a  baptism."  But  is  mar- 
tyrdom  a  fluid  ?  Can  we  conceive  of  an 
immersion  in  martyrdom  ?  We  can  con- 
ceive of  a  purification  by  martyrdom,  but  all 
idea  of  immersion  in  it  is  sheer  absurdity. 

Ambrose  (vol.  2,  p.  333,  Paris,  1690,) 
has  this  passage :  "  He  who  is  baptized,  both 
according  to  the   law  and  according  to  the 


61 

gospel,  is  made  clean."  Here  the  sense  of 
cleanse  is  explicitly  given  to  baptizo.  Does 
Dr.  Fuller  wish  us  to  presume  that  it  is  a 
cleansing  by  immersion  ?  Let  him  read  a 
little  further.  "  According  to  the  law,  (he 
that  is  baptized  is  made  clean,)  because 
Moses,  with  a  branch  of  hyssop,  sprinkled 
the  blood  of  a  lamb"  The  whole  allusion 
is  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  pas- 
chal lamb  on  the  door-posts,  by  which  the 
Israelites  were  saved  when  the  destroying 
angel  passed  through  Egypt.  And  this 
sprinkling  of  blood  around  the  door  Ambrose 
calls  a  baptism.  Will  any  man  presume  to 
say  that  that  sprinkling  of  blood  was  a  total 
immersion? 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  on  Is.  4  :  4,  vol.  2? 
Paris,  183S,  says :  "  We  have  been  baptized, 
not  with  mere  water,  nor  yet  with  the  ashes 
of  a  heifer,  but  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire." 
Here  we  have  a  recognition  of  three  bap- 
tisms, one  by  water,  one  by  the  Spirit  and 
another  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer.  Are  we 
to  understand  this  last  as  an  immersion  in  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer  ?  Let  Paul  answer :  "  The 
6* 


62 

ashes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean, 
sanctifieth  to  the  purification  of  the  flesh." 
Tertullian,  De  Baptismo,  p.  257,  Paris, 
1634,  has  tins  passage  :  "  At  the  sacred  rites 
of  Isis,  or  Mithra,  they  are  initiated  by  a 
washing;  they  carry  out  their  gods  with 
washings  ;  they  expiate  villas,  houses,  tem- 
ples, and  whole  cities,  by  sprinkling  with 
water  carried  around.  Certainly  they  are 
purified  in  the  Appolinarian  and  Eleusinian 
rites ;  and  they  say  that  they  do  this  to  ob- 
tain regeneration  and  to  escape  the  punish- 
ment of  their  perjuries.  Also,  among  the 
ancients,  whoever  had  stained  himself  with 
murder,  expiated  h:m>elf  with  purifying 
water.  In  view  of  these  things,  we  see  the 
zeal  of  the  devil  in  rivaling  the  things  of  God, 
inasmuch  as  he  thus  aUo  practices  baptism 
among  his  own  people."  Here  we  have  a 
description  of  the  various  lustrations  and 
expiations  performed  by  the  devil's  people, 
not  only  upon  their  own  bodies,  but  also 
upon  '-villas,  houses,  temples  and  whole  cit- 
ies''* and  that  "  by  sprinkling  with  water  car- 
ried around.11     And  yet  Tertullian  sums  it 


63 

all  up  as  the  devil's il baptism^"  (baptismum.) 
Will  any  one  have  the  effrontery  to  say  that 
he  meant  immersion  ? 

We  have  before  us  another  passage  from 
Justin  Martyr,  (where  it  is  to  be  found  in 
his  works  we  have  not  had  the  time  to  as- 
certain, but  we  have  no  doubt  of  its  genuine- 
ness,) in  which  he  also  speaks  of  the  purifi- 
cations copied  by  the  heathen  from  the  ordi- 
nances of  Christianity.  <;  The  demons," 
says  he,  ';  hearing  of  this  washing,  or  purifi- 
cation, proclaimed  by  the  prophet,  caused 
those  entering  into  their  temples  to  sprinkle 
themselves."  Now,  if  the  demons  were  thus 
imitating  God's  purification,  and  that  divine 
purification  was  a  washing  by  immersion, 
how  does  it  happen  that  they  caused  their 
worshipers  "  to  sprinkle  themselves?"  How 
could  sprinkling  be  a  copy  of  immersion? 

In  Ambrose,  vol.  1,  p.  356,  Paris,  1690, 
we  have  this  question:  '-Uncle  sit  baptisma 
nisi  de  cruce  Christi,  de  morte  Christi  ?" 
"  Whence  is  baptism,  (i.  e.,  forgiveness  and 
purification.)  except  from  the  cross  of  Christ, 
from  the  death  of  Christ."     Does  baptism 


64 

mean  immersion  here  ?  Is  there  any  such 
thing  as  immersion  from  the  cross  and  death 
of  Christ? 

In  vol.  2,  p.  355,  the  same  father,  taking 
a  general  survey  of  the  Jewish  and  heathen 
absolutions,  thus  sums  up  the  whole  matter, 
"There  are  many  kinds  of  purifications, 
(baptismatwn,)  but  the  apostle  proclaims  one 
baptism.  Why?  There  are  purifications 
(baptismal)  of  the  nations,  but  they  are  not 
purifications,  (baptismata.)  Washings  they 
are;  purifications  (baptismata)  they  cannot 
be.  The  body  is  washed,  but  sin  is  not 
washed  away,  nay,  in  that  washing  sin 
is  contracted.  There  were  also  ablutions 
(baptismata)  of  the  Jews;  some  superfluous, 
others  typical."  Why  were  these  Jewish 
and  heathen  baptisms  no  baptisms  ?  Because 
<!  sin  is  not  washed  away"  in  them.  But 
whether  immersion  washes  away  sin  or  not, 
is  it  not  still  an  immersion  ?  Could  Ambrose 
have  been  guilty  of  saying,  "Immersions 
they  are,  but  immersions  they  cannot  be  V 
Does  not  every  one  see  at  a  glance  that  here 
the  word  baptism,  in  the  very  same  sentence, 


65 

has  more  than  one  meaning  and  must  be  so 
rendered  ? 

Cyprian,  on  1  Kings  33  :  33,  calls  the 
pouring  of  the  water  upon  the  altar  and  hewn 
bullock,  in  Elijah's  sacrifice,  a  baptism. 
Was  it  an  immersion  ? 

In  a  paper  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  found 
in  the  works  of  John  of  Damascus,  it  is  said 
that  <;John  was  baptized  (ebaptisthce)  by 
placing  his  hand  on  the  divine  head  of  his 
Master."  Is  the  placing  of  a  hand  on  an- 
other's head  an  immersion  ? 

Anastasius  (Biblo.  Patrum,  vol.  5,  p.  959) 
speaks  of  baptism  as  poured  into  water-pots, 
and  of  water-pots  as  baptized  by  pouring 
baptism  into  them.  Can  immersion  be  pour, 
ed  ?  And  he  also  speaks  of  this  very  trans- 
action as  a  type  of  the  baptism  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. Did  he  mean  that  the  Gentiles  were 
to  be  immersed  by  pouring  immersion  upon 
them? 

Ambrose  (Apol.  David,  section  59)  says, 
"He  who  desired  to  be  purified  with  a  typi- 
cal baptism  was  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of 
a  lamb  by  means   of  a  bunch   of  hyssop." 


66 

But  how  could  such  a  sprinkling  be  a  type 
of  immersion  ? 

What  shall  we  say,  then,  to  these  things? 
that  baptizo  means  a  total  immersion,  and 
nothing  else  ?  Have  not  nearly  a  dozen  (all 
that  we  have  consulted  on  this  occasion,) 
among  our  most  distinguished  lexicographers 
testified  directly  to  the  contrary  ?  Have  we 
not  shown  that  the  wetting  (nipto)  of  the 
hands  of  Telemachus,  and  the  lustrations  of 
the  Jews  on  their  couches  while  at  meals, 
and  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  a  iamb 
with  hyssop,  are  called  baptisms,  and  given 
as  types  of  the  christian  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism 1  Have  we  not  shown  that  the  inward 
purgation  of  the  soul  from  anger,  covetous- 
ness,  envy  and  hatred — the  outpouring  of  the 
blood  of  Christ  on  the  cross — the  supposed 
absolution  conferred  by  martyrdom — the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb 
on  the  door-posts  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt — the 
sprinkling  of  the  ashesof  a  heifer — the  sprink- 
ling of  water  by  the  heathen  upon  villas, 
houses,  temples,  and  even  entire  cities — the 
remission  of  sins  from  the  cross  and  death  of 


67 

Christ— the  purification  of  pots  by  pouring  in 
water — and  even  the  laying  of  John's  hand 
upon  the  Saviour's  head, — instances  in  which 
all  idea  of  immersion  is  totally  excluded, — 
all  are  designated  by  baptizo  in  one  or  the 
other  of  its  forms,  and  that  too  by  great  Chris- 
tian teachers  in  various  ages  of  the  early 
church,  most  of  whom  were  native  Greeks, 
who  must  have  known  the  meaning  of  the 
language  which  they  spoke  ?  And  in  the 
face  of  all  this,  must  we  yet  believe  that  there 
is  no  baptism  where  there  is  no  immersion  ? 
We  put  it  to  Dr.  Fuller,  as  an  honest  man, 
and  a  Christian  minister,  to  say  whether  he 
is  not  mistaken,  and  has  not  broached  a  doc- 
trine so  untenable  as  to  be  in  honor  bound  to 
withdraw  or  modify  it  ?  Or,  if  he  is  "joined 
to  his  idols,"  we  put  it  to  the  good  sense  of 
every  reader,  whether  we  have  not  proven 
his  assertions  on  this  point  to  be  mere  truth- 
less dogmatisms  ;  and  whether  Dr.  Fuller 
has  proceeded  in  this  matter  with  that  fair- 
ness and  love  for  truth  becoming  an  honest 
man  of  God,  professedly  engaged  in  laying 
down  to  the  church  and  to  the  world  what 


63 

the  Divine  commands  and  cur  duties  are  ? 
We  join  him  in  the  exclamation,  "How  aw- 
ful a  thing  thus  to  misguide  men  as  to  a  sol- 
emn ordinance  of  the  gospel." 


69 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Dr.  Fuller's  hopeless  refuge — His  instances 
from  the  classics —  The  necessity  upon  him 
to  prove  a  negative — His  authorities — Pres~ 
ent  condition  of  the  argument. 

Thus  far  we  have  shown  that  Dr.  Fuller's 
theory,  that  a  word  cannot  have  more  than 
one  meaning,  rests  upon  mere  groundless 
assertion,  at  war  with  the  common  every,  day 
use  of  language  and  with  the  usus  loquendi 
of  languages  generally.  We  have  also 
shown,  from  numerous  standard  lexicogra- 
phers and  from  fourteen  different  passages 
from  the  fathers,  who  must  have  understood 
the  scriptural  use  of  the  word,  that  baptizo 
has  other  meanings  than  that  of  "  a  total 
immersion."  So  far  then  Dr.  Fuller's  as- 
sumptions are  upset  and  gone  beyond  re- 
covery. 

It  seems  too  that  he  himself  anticipated 
such  a  result,  and  like  the  unjust  steward, 
cunningly  provided  for  himself  a  way  of  es- 
cape from  the  just  consequences  of  his  pre- 
7 


70 

sumption  and  unfair  dealing  when  the  day 
of  reckoning  should  come.  In  regard  to  the 
word  spring,  (and  this  is  a  remark  which  he 
intends  to  apply  to  all  instances  of  words  of 
different  meanings.)  he  says,  "  A  schoolboy 
sees  that  these  are  different  words,  though 
similarly  spelt,  and  perhaps  traceable  to  the 
same  origin;"  p.  14.  Very  well ;  let  us 
follow  him  into  this  retreat. 

We  have  demonstrated  that  baptizo  has 
other  meanings  than  that  of  "  a  total  immer- 
sion." Upon  the  theory  then  in  which  Dr. 
Fuller  has  taken  refuge  there  must  be  va- 
rious bapfizos,  one  meaning  :i  a  total  immer- 
sion," one  to  dip,  another  to  stain,  another 
simply  to  wash,  another  to  sprinkle,  another 
to  pour  upon,  another  to  draw  water,  another 
to  bathe  one's  self,  another  to  purify,  another 
to  be  lost,  another  to  wet,  another  to  trouble, 
another  to  destroy  utterly,  another  to  drown, 
another  to  expiate,  and  so  on.  His  position 
therefore  narrows  itself  to  this:  that  the 
baptizo  employed  in  the  Saviour's  command 
and  elsewhere  used  in  the  New  Testament 
to  designate  Christian  baptism,  is  the  baptizo 


71 

that  means  "a  total  immersion."  Have  we 
not  a  right  then  to  demand  the  proof  for  this  ? 
Has  he  given  it?  No.  Has  he  even  at- 
tempted  to  give  it?  Not  a  word.  "  A 
schoolboy  sees  it"  is  his  whole  argument  on 
the  subject ! 

Now  such  claptrap  and  trickery  may  an- 
swer for  "schoolboys;"  but  we  trow  that 
sensible  minds  will  not  be  willing  to  call 
that  "a  calm  philological  inquiry"  in  which 
it  occurs,  nor  esteem  it  sufficient  to  convict 
the  great  Christian  world  of  dereliction  from 
essential  duty.  And  we  also  promise,  when 
we  come  to  the  proper  place,  to  prove,  what 
in  this  debate  we  are  not  logically  bound  to 
prove  in  order  to  refute  the  Baptist  theory, 
that  the  baptizo  used  in  the  Scriptures  to  de- 
note the  Christian  ordinance  of  baptism  has 
a  different  sense  from  that  limited  word 
which  "  denotes  a  total  immersion  and  has 
no  other  meaning." 

We  proceed  now  to  notice  the  instances 
alleged  by  Dr.  Fuller  to  show  that  baptizo 
means  a  total  immersion  and  nothing  else. 
He  says  that  he  takes  them  "at  random." 


72 

In  this  declaration  we  feel  bound  to  agree 
with  him,  for  "random"  quotations  they  cer- 
tainly are. 

The  first  observation  that  we  have  to  make 
upon  these  alleged  passages  is,  that  they  are 
all,  without  a  single  exception,  drawn  from 
old  heathen  authors  who  lived  before  the 
time  of  Christ.  And  we  submit  it  to  Dr. 
Fuller,  or  any  reasonable  man,  whether  it  is 
possible  to  learn  in  what  sense  baptizo  was 
used  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles  from  those 
who  never  knew  any  thing  about  Christian 
ordinances,  and  who  lived  and  wrote  some 
hundreds  of  years  before  Christ? 

In  the  next  place,  these  very  quotations 
show  that  even  in  the  estimation  of  the  old 
heathen  Greeks  baptizo  does  not  uniformly 
convey  the  meaning  for  which  our  learned 
prosecutor  contends. 

In  the  first  instance  it  is  used  to  denote 
the  setting  of  the  sun  behind  the  western 
ocean.  Is  the  setting  of  the  sun  behind  the 
sea  "a  total  immersion?"  Then  for  the 
candidate  for  baptism  to  pass  behind  the 
cistern    containing  the  baptismal   water   is 


73 

just  as  much  an  immersion  as  to  go  into  the 
cistern  and  to  be  covered  up  by  the  water 
in  actual  contact  with  his  person.  Was  the 
sun  ever  in  actual  contact  with  the  waters 
of  the  sea? 

In  the  second  instance  it  is  used  to  denote 
the  action  of  the  smith^n  putting  the  heated 
metal  into  the  water  for  the  purpose  of  tem- 
pering it.  This  we  suppose  to.be  a  genuine 
case  of  immersion. 

In  the  third,  fourth,  fifth,  eleventh,  thir- 
teenth and  fourteenth  instances  baptizo  is 
used  to  denote  the  loss  of  men  and  vessels 
of  war  by  sinking  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 
If  it  then  is, to  be  taken  in  this  sense,  Dr. 
Fuller,  according  to  his  own  showing,  is 
bound  to  sink  his  candidates  to  the  bottom 
and  to  leave  and  keep  them  there.  The 
emersion,  or  rising  again,  is  altogether  for- 
eign to  the  meaning  of  the  word.  He  him- 
self declares  "  Baptizo  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  rising  again.  The  word,  I  repeat 
it,  means  nothing  but  immerse.  No  one  word 
can  express  both  an  immersion  and  an  emer- 
sion;" p.  19.  "Jesus  commands  his  disci- 
7* 


74 

pies  to  be  immersed;"  p.  70.  We  hold  him 
then  to  his  own  assertions  and  examples,  and 
insist  that,  by  his  own  admissions,  he  is  vi- 
olating the  command  by  again  bringing  his 
immersed  subjects  up  out  of  the  water.  "  Is 
it  not  a  fearful  thing  to  alter  an  ordinance 
instituted  by  the  Loj^I  Jesus?"  p.  49. 

In  the  sixth  instarrce  baptizo  denotes  the 
dipping  of  a  vessel  in  a  fountain  to  take  up 
water.  Is  it  common,  in  performing  such 
an  operation,  io  submerse  entirely  the  vessel 
in  every  part,  handle  and  all  ? 

In  the  seventh  instance  baptizo  denotes  the 
act  of  the  crow  washing  her  head  and  breast. 
Most  persons  perhaps  have  seen  this  perform- 
ance.  And  is  the  splashing  of  this  bird  with 
its  head  and  wings  upon  the  margin  of  a  lake 
or  stream  "  a  total  immersion  ?"  How  far 
from  it ! 

In  the  eighth  and  tenth  instances  it  is  used 
to  signify  the  act  of  drowning  in  the  waves. 
Was  Christ's  command  to  baptize  a  com- 
mand to  drown  in  the  waves,  or  to  sink  be- 
neath the  surges  for  the  purpose  of  drown- 
ing ? 


75 

In  the  ninth  instance  it  is  used  to  denote 
the  act  of  dissolving  Cupid  in  wine  in  order 
to  drink  him.  Is  the  command  to  baptize 
men  a  command  to  form  a  solution  of  them 
in  order  to  drink  them  ? 

In  the  twelfth  instance  it  is  used  to  express 
the  effect  of  the  sudden  overflowing  of  the 
Nile  in  overwhelming^hose  animals  that 
failed  to  escape  from  the  rush  of  the  out- 
spreading waters.  Is  the  commission  to 
baptize  a  command  to  pour  a  furious  and 
sudden  overflowing  stream  upon  men,  so  as 
to  sweep  them  utterly  away  and  destroy 
them? 

These  are  the  passages  cited  by  our  au- 
thor, and  relied  on  by  him  to  carry  his  con- 
tracted interpretation  of  baptizo.  The  read- 
er will  see  at  once,  from  Dr.  Fuller's  own 
citations,  how  equivocal  and  various  is  the 
meaning  assigned  to  this  word,  even  by  the 
old  classic  Greeks;  and  that,  if  Dr.  Fuller 
would  undertake  faithfully  to  administer 
baptism  according  to  the  exact  import  of  the 
word  in  the  passages  he  has  adduced,  he 
would  dip  and  splash  the  head  and  shoulders 


76 

of  some,  immerse  some,  dissolve  some,  sink 
others  to  the  bottom  never  to  rise  again, 
plunge  some  in  the  waves  to  destroy  them, 
overwhelm  some  with  an  overflowing  and 
rushing  flood,  and  let  some  off  by  simply 
passing  them  behind  the  baptismal  pool, 
without  even  being  touched  with  water. 

But  we  must  not  be  too  severe  in  our  criti- 
cism of  these  passages,  as  they  are  profess- 
edly only  given  "at  random;"  and  serious 
inquirers  after  the  way  of  obedience  to  Jesus 
Christ  are  not  likely  to  be  convinced  that 
the  great  body  of  Protestant  Christendom  is 
apostate  from  Christ  by  a  dozen  of  "random" 
quotations  from  the  old  heathen  classics. 

But  suppose  that  we  admit,  for  the  sake  of 
argument,  that  all  these  passages  go  directly 
to  the  point  and  furnish  incontestible  proof 
that  baptizo  has  in  them  the  exclusive  signi- 
fication which  Dr  Fuller  wishes  to  impose 
upon  it;  that  proof  cannot  go  farther  than 
these  particular  passages  themselves.  If 
even  a  hundred  more  instances  to  the  same 
effect  were  produced,  as  they  doubtless  might 
be,  they  could  prove  nothing  at  all  as  to  the 


77 

meaning  of  baptizo  in  ten  thousand  other 
places.  The  most  ordinary  thinker  can  pro- 
duce instances  without  number  in  which  the 
word  let  signifies  to  permit;  but  can  they 
prove  that  Shakspeare  did  not  use  it  in  the 
sense  of  hinder  ?  We  freely  admit  that  bap- 
tizo often  does  mean  to  immerse,  and  can 
give  instances  to  this  effect  as  strong  and 
direct  as  any  adduced  by  our  industrious 
prosecutor.  It  is  utter  supererogation  to 
be  so  voluminous  in  proof  of  what  nobody 
denies.  And  it  is  amazing  to  see  how  Bap- 
tist writers  trouble  themselves  and  pile  up 
authorities  to  establish  a  point  which  is  not 
at  all  in  question.  No  sensible  man  to  our 
knowledge  has  ever  refused  to  concede  that 
baptizo  frequently  means  to  immerse,  espe- 
cially in  the  old  classics.  But  before  Dr. 
Fuller  is  competent  to  say  that  it  means 
nothing  else  and  is  never  used  in  any  other 
sense,  he  must  have  examined  every  passage 
in  the  Greek  language  in  which  this  word 
occurs;  for  if  there  should  remain  but  one 
single  instance  of  the  use  of  the  word  which 
has  not  been  ascertained  by  actual  exam- 


78 

ination,  there  must  still  be  a  proportionate 
degree  of  doubt  upon  the  positive  truth  of  his 
assertion.  Has  he  then  examined  all  such 
passages?  He  certainly  will  make  no  such 
pretensions.  From  certain  indications,  which 
we  will  not  stop  to  point  out,  we  are  con- 
strained to  believe  that  he  has  not  examined 
in  their  original  connections  even  the  tenth 
part  of  those  passages  which  he  has  trans- 
ferred  to  his  pages.  How  utterly  incompe- 
tent then,  not  to  use  a  severer  term,  is  such 
a  man  to  tell  the  world  that  baptizo  means 
to  immerse,  and  never  has  any  other  meaning! 
The  reader  will  thus  perceive  what  a 
hopeless  task  Dr.  Fuller  has  undertaken  to 
perform,  and  how  entirely  insufficient  his 
quotations  are  to  effect  the  end  for  which 
they  are  given.  His  assertion,  and  the  sys- 
tem which  rests  upon  it,  absolutely  demand 
of  him,  so  that  he  is  both  logically  and  mor- 
ally bound  to  do,  in  order  to  sustain  himself, 
what  no  man  before  him  has  ever  been  able 
to  accomplish,  i.  e.,  io  prove  a  negative.  No 
man  can  prove  that  there  are  no  worlds  in 
God's  universe  but  those  discernible  by  the 


79 

eyes  of  an  earthly  beholder,  without  an  ac- 
tual exploration  of  creation's  limits.  No 
man  can  prove  that  there  is  no  member  of 
the  human  race  bearing  the  name  of  Beelze- 
bub, without  first  ascertaining  what  each 
individual's  name  is.  And  so,  when  Dr. 
Fuller  says,  "  I  will  prove  the  negative,"  (p. 
32,)  and  undertakes  to  show  that  baptizo 
never  means  any  thing  but  immerse,  he 
obligates  himself  to  go  through  with  a  dem- 
onstration which  must  for  ever  remain  in- 
complete  and  unsatisfactory,  until  he  has 
seen  and  ascertained  its  signification  in  every 
sentence  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  whole 
round  of  Greek  literature.  And  until  he  has 
completed  this  work  of  exploration,  and  made 
his  assertion  good  in  every  existing  passage 
containing  baptizo,  he  has  failed  in  his  ob- 
ject, and  his  charge  of  criminal  dereliction 
upon  the  great  body  of  the  Christian  Church 
falls  unsupported  to  the  ground. 

The  next  step  in  this  remarkable  "philo- 
logical inquiry"  furnishes  us  with  a  list  of 
quotations  from  Calvin,  Luther,  Beza,  Vit- 
ringa,   Buddeus,  Brenner,  Scholtz,  and  per- 


80 

haps  a  dozen  other  authors,  to  prove,  what? 
What  nobody  denies, — that  baptizo  has  the 
meaning  of  immerse  !  But  what  is  the  use 
of  being  so  wonderfully  erudite  upon  points 
where  there  is  no  dispute?  It  seems  to  be  a 
settled  part  of  Baptist  logic  to  accumulate 
authorities  upon  things  in  which  we  all  agree, 
in  order,  by  an  adroit  petitio  principii,  to 
make  it  appear  that  they  have  triumphantly 
proven  what  they  have  not  begun  to  prove. 
As  an  illustration  of  Dr.  Fuller's  charac- 
ter for  fairness,  we  also  direct  the  reader's 
attention  to  the  fact  that  he  calls  these  quo- 
tations  "  concessions  from  learned  men,  not 
Baptists."  Webster  gives  us  pretty  distinct- 
ly to  understand  that  there  can  be  no  con- 
cessions except  in  cases  of  dispute,  or  where 
something  is  demanded.  But  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  all  the  authors  named  in  this  list  lived 
anterior  to  the  rise  of  the  Baptist  controversy 
or  in  countries  where  this  subject  was  never 
mooted.  They  spoke  these  things,  (if  they 
ever  did  speak  them  as  Dr.  Fuller  reports,) 
not  in  the  way  of  concession  to  Baptist  con- 
troversialists, but  in  the  way  of  free  etymo- 


81 

logical  illustrations  of  great  spiritual  truths, 
just  as  Dr.  Chalmers  refers  to  the  practice 
of  the  Oriental  churches  of  administering 
baptism  by  immersion.  They  did  not  mean 
to  teach  that  immersion  enters  into  the  es- 
sence and  validity  of  baptism;  they  them- 
selves never  were  immersed;  they  never 
practiced  immersion,  neither  did  they  ever 
find  fault  with  their  own  baptism  because  it 
was  not  performed  by  immersion.  And  yet, 
forsooth,  Dr.  Fuller  would  now  have  us  tc 
believe  that  they  conceded,  taught  and  were 
convinced  that  baptizo  has  no  other  meaning 
but  immerse,  and  that  where  there  is  no  im- 
mersion  there  is  no  baptism  !  Yea,  and  pre- 
faces the  whole  thing  with  the  declaration 
that  there  is  not  a  single  Baptist  among 
them! 

All  these  alleged  "concessions"  then,  so 
far  as  they  are  of  any  force,  amount  to  no 
more  than  what  we  ourselves  have  conced- 
ed ;  and  so  far  as  concerns  the  real  matter 
in  dispute,  might  as  well  have  been  omitted 
as  inserted. 

Here   then  we  have   Dr.   Fuller's  entire 


82 

"argument;"  respecting  which  he  says,  "It 
was  the  complaint  of  a  writer  that  his  oppo- 
nent did  not  know  when  a  thing  was  proved. 
Every  candid  reader  will,  I  think,  grant  that 
I  have  ascertained  the  meaning  of  haptizo. 
It  signifies  to  immerse  and  has  no  other 
meaning!"  p.  25. 

This  certainly  is  cool ;  and  we  have  no 
doubt,  an  opinion  very  agreeable  to  himself 
and  particularly  comforting  just  at  this  point. 
We  dislike  to  see  a  "good,  easy  man"  dis- 
turbed in  his  enjoyment;  and  we  are  sorry, 
for  Dr.  Fuller's  sake,  that  his  complacency 
in  this  matter  is  in  such  serious  danger  of 
being  interfered  with.  For  the  sake  of  truth, 
however,  we  submit  it  to  "  every  candid 
reader,"  whether  the  Doctor  has  even  begun 
to  prove  that  baptizo  has  no  meaning  but 
that  of  a  total  immersion.  Let  us  look  back 
for  a  moment  and  bring  together  in  one 
group  the  cardinal  points  that  have  been 
brought  under  review. 

Dr.  Fuller  says  that  a  word  cannot  have 
more  than  one  meaning.  This  theory  we 
have  utterly  exploded,  and  demonstrated  by 


83 

instances  from  a  dozen  different  languages 
that  the  same  words  are  often  used  in  different 
senses;  thus  showing  that  it  is  no  unheard 
of  thing  that  baptizo  should  have  different 
significations  in  different  connections. 

Dr.  Fuller  asserts  that  baptizo  has  not, 
and  cannot  have,  any  other  meaning  but  that 
of  "  a  total  immersion."  In  answer  to  this 
we  have  produced  against  him  the  testimony 
of  a  half  score  of  standard  lexicographers, 
as  well  as  a  still  greater  number  of  passages 
from  the  fathers,  many  of  whom  were  native 
Greeks,  in  which  baptizo  is  used  in  connec- 
tions where  it  could  not  possibly  mean  sub- 
mersion. 

All  that  remains  then  to  Dr.  Fuller  is, 
what  he  says,  that  Mr.  Carson  sa^ys,  that 
Mr.  Newman  says,  that  Dr.  Porson  said,  if 
there  is  any  difference,  baptizois  a  stronger 
word  than  bapto,  to  tinge,  and  means  im- 
merse ;  that  the  old  heathen  classics  often 
use  it  in  the  sense  of  immerse ;  and  that  a 
dozen  authors  or  more,  who  never  doubted 
or  contested  the  validity  of  baptism  by  affu- 
sion, in  the  way  of  free  etymological  ill  us- 


84 

trations  have  incidentally  remarked  that 
baptize  has  the  signification  of  immerce. 
And  this  is  the  foundation  of  a  system  which 
holds  the  great  body  of  Christ's  people  to  be 
in  dangerous  error,  in  a  state  of  disobedience 
to  a  positive  command  of  their  Lord,  unfit 
for  participation  in  the  holy  supper,  in  a 
state  of  alienation  from  the  true  visible 
church,  and  in  alarming  danger  of  eternal 
death  !  At  such  presumption  as  this  we  are 
at  a  loss  to  determine  which  is  most  moved, 
our  pity,  our  indignation  or  our  contempt. 
And  if  this  is  being  "  a  Baptist  on  principle" 
may  God  have  mercy  upon  those  who  are 
Baptists  "  in  sectarianism  and  bigotry!" 


85 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Baptizo  as  used  by  the  Sepluagbil — Perver- 
sion of  the  Scriptures — Naamcufs  Bap- 
tism— Judith's  purification — Baptism  from 
defilement  by  touching  the  dead. 

Dr.  Fuller  thinks  that  his  "  disquisition 
thus  far  ought  to  put  an  end  to  this  contro- 
versy." This  is  his  opinion.  But  he  will 
find  men  to  differ  with  him.  So  far  from 
his  having  settled  the  controversy  in  favor 
of  his  sectarian  theory,  we  have  demonstrated 
that  baptizo  has  other  meanings  than  sheer 
immersion,  and  that  his  assertions  on  this 
point  are  mere  gratuitous  assumptions. 

We  now  proceed  with  him  to  examine  the 
use  of  baptizo  in  the  Septuagint,  or  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament  and  Apocry- 
pha. 

The  first  passage  we  note  in  which  this 
word  occurs,  is  Isaiah,  21  :  4.  Dr.  Fuller 
thus  gives  it,  that  is  to  say,  his  version  of 
it;  "The  prophet,  foreseeing  the  capture  of 
Babylon  and  the  subjugation  of  the  empire 
8* 


86 

by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  says,  '  My  heart 
pants  and  iniquity  sinks  (baptizes)  me  ;'  "  p. 
49.  Dr.  Fuller  is  horrified  at  the  evident 
slips  of  the  pen  made  by  Mr.  Lape  in  quoting 
from  an  apocryphal  book,  under  the  head  of 
"  Instances  from  the  classic  Greek  of  the 
Old  Testament,"  and  in  mistaking  a  Greek 
word.  He  indeed  exculpates  Mr.  Lape  from 
"  designed  perversion  of  God's  Word;"  but 
holds  him  "inexcusable"  for  his  "  entire  ig- 
norance." What  then  shall  be  said  of  Dr. 
Fuller  when  we  open  the  Bible  and  find  that 
the   passage  reads,  not  "  iniquity  sinks  7ne,,} 

but  "  FEARFULNESS    AFFRIGHTED    ME  !"       Has 

he  designedly  or  ignorant] y  put  words  in  the 
prophet's  lips  which  the  prophet  never  ut- 
tered ?  Dr.  Alexander  renders  the  original 
Hebrew,  "  Horror  appals  ?ne.,,  See  his 
Commentary  on  this  verse.  Scott  says, 
"  The  prophet  here  seems  to  personate  Bel- 
shazzar  on  the  night  when  Babylon  was 
taken."  See  his  Commentary.  The  pas- 
sage evidently  points  to  the  scene  described 
by  Daniel,  5:  1,  6,  "  Belshazzar,  the  king, 
made  a  ^reat  feast  to  a  thousand  of  his  lords 


87 

and  drank  wine  before  the  thousand.  .  . 
And  they  brought  the  golden  vessels  that 
were  taken  out  of  the  temple  of  the  house  of 
God,  which  was  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  king 
and  his  princes,  his  wives  and  his  concu-- 
bines,  drank  in  them.  .  In  the  same  hour 
came  foith  fingers  of  a  man's  hand  and  wrote 
over  against  the  candlestick  upon  the  plaster 
of  the  wall  of  the  king's  palace  ;  and  the 
king  saw  the  part  of  the  hand  that  wrote. 
Then  the  king's  countenance  was  changed  and 
his  thoughts  troubled  him,  so  that  the  joints  of 
his  loins  were  loosed  and  his  knees  smote  one 
against  another.'7  Accordingly  Lowtli  para- 
phrases  the  passage  as  if  Belshazzar  were 
saying  to  himself,  "  When  1  thought  to  be  at 
ease  and  to  have  some  respite  from  trouble 
and  anxiety,  then  the  fearful  apprehensions 
of  God's  judgments  seized  me."  See  his 
Commentary.  And  all  this  fright,  appaiing 
horror,  trembling,  and  seizure  of  the  soul 
with  fearful  apprehension  of  God's  judg- 
ments, is  signified  in  the  version  of  the  sev- 
entv,  which  is  honored  and  dignified  by  being 
quoted   by  Christ  himself  and  his   inspired 


88 

apostles,  by  the  one  word  baptizei.  Does  it 
then  mean  "  a  total  immersion  and  nothing 
else  ?"  How  can  any  man  make  immersion 
out  of  it  in  this  case  ? 

The  next  place  in  the  Septuagint  in  which 
we  find  this  word  is  2  Kings,  5  :  14,  «  Then 
he  (Naaman)  went  down  and  dipped  (ebap- 
tisato)  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan,  accord- 
ing to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God."  Dr. 
Fuller  lays  great  stress  upon  this  passage, 
and  is  amazed  that  any  "candid  man"  can 
any  longer  doubt  with  this  instance  before 
him.  He  refers  to  it  on  all  occasions  and 
evidently  regards  it  as  his  strongest  point. 
Let  us  then  look  at  it  with  care. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  record  says 
that  Naaman  "  baptized  himself  according 
to  the  saying  of  the  mail  of  God."  We  must 
then  ascertain  what  that  saying  was  and  in- 
terpret the  ebaptisato  according  to  the  sense 
of  the  terms  used  in  the  command  of  which 
the  baptism  was  the  fulfilment.  This  is 
plain  common  sense,  that  if  Naaman  baptized 
himself  according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of 
God,  that  "saying  of  the  man  of  God"  must 


89 

contain  the  true  sense  in  which  the  word 
baptizo  is  used. 

Going  back  then  a  few  verses,  we  read 
that  "  Elisha  sent  a  messenger  unto  him, 
saying,  Go  and  wash  (lousai)  in  Jordan 
seven  times,  .  and  thou  shalt  be  clean" 
(katharisthase.)  But  Naaman  was  wroth, 
and  went  away  and  said,  "  Behold,  1  thought, 
he  will  surely  come  out  to  me,  and  stand, 
and  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God, 
and  strike  his  hand  over  the  place."  (Was 
not  Naaman's  leprosy  confined  to  one  partic- 
ular location  on  his  body  ?)  "  Are  not  Abana 
and  Pharphar,  rivers  of  Damascus  better  than 
all  the  waters  of  Israel  ?  May  I  not  wash 
(lousomai)  in  them  and  be  clean  ?  So  he 
turned  and  went  away  in  a  rage.  And  his 
servants  came  near  and  spake  unto  him  and 
said,  My  father,  if  the  prophet  had  hid  thee 
do  some  great  thing,  wouldst  thou  not  have 
done  it?  How  much  rather  then,  when  he 
sailh  to  thee,  Wash  (lousai)  and  be  clean  V 

The  saying  of  the  man  of  God  then,  ac- 
cording to  which  Naaman  baptized  himself, 
was  not  a  command   to  immerse  himself  to- 


90 

tally,  but  to  ivash  and  cleanse  himself.  The 
Greek  words  in  the  command  are  not  bapfo 
and  baptizo,  but  louo  and  katharizo.  And 
according  to  Dr.  Fuller's  own  argument,  on 
page  31,  we  can  demonstrate  that  the  proph- 
et's bidding  had  no  sort  of  reference  to  im- 
mersion. What  does  Dr.  Fuller  say  ?  how 
does  he  reason  ?  "  Jesus  could  have  been 
at  no  loss  for  a  word  clearly  to  express  his 
meaning.  Did  he  intend  sprinkling?  The 
word  was  rantizo.  Did  he  require  pouring? 
The  word  was  keo.  If  wash,  nipto,  (which, 
by  the  way,  according  to  Dr.  Fuller's  own 
authority  on  page  21,  means  to  wet  or  wash 
only  the  hands.)  If  bathe,  louo.  If  immerse 
or  dye,  bapfo.  If  immerse  and  nothing  else, 
the  word  was  baptizo.  We  argue  then,  upon 
Dr.  Fuller's  own  ground,  if  Elisha  intended 
Naaman  to  immerse  himself  totally  and  noth- 
ing else,  the  word  to  express  it  was  baptizo. 
But  the  prophet,  according  to  the  seventy, 
did  not  use  the  word  baptizo,  but  louo  and 
katharizo.  Therefore  it  inevitably  follows, 
from  Dr.  Fuller's  own  showing,  that  the 
prophet  did  not  intend  that  Naaman  should 


91 

immerse  himself.  And  if  Elisha  did  not 
direct  Naaman  to  immerse  himself,  and 
Naaman's  baptism  was  according  to  Elisha's 
direction,  the  seventy  have  either  used  the 
word  baptizo  wrongly  or  it  does  not  mean 
immersion  and  nothing  else.  We  cannot 
conceive  how  Dr.  Fuller,  with  all  his  dex- 
terity and  cunning,  is  to  extricate  himself 
from  this  dilemma. 

But  we  do  not  stop  with  this.  We  insist 
that  louo  and  katharizo  in  the  prophet's  com- 
mand must  give  the  sense  of  baptizo,  which 
describes  the  act  of  Naaman  in  complying 
with  the  command  ;  for  it  is  expressly  de- 
clared that  he  "  baptized  himself  according 
to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God."  There 
can  be  no  dispute  about  the  fact  that  katha- 
rizo means  simply  to  cleanse,  especially  in  the 
legal  sense  of  purification,  which  was  for  the 
most  part  performed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring 
water  over  the  subject.  And  louo  evidently 
means  nearly  the  same  thing.  It  is  used 
eight  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  no 
one  instance  does  it  convey  any  other  mean- 
ing than  that  of  cleanse  or  purify.     In  Titus 


92 

3 1  ft,  it  denotes  the  work  of  God's  Holy  Spirit 
in  purifying  and  renewing  the  heart.  In 
Acts  16  :  33,  it  denotes  the  act  of  moistening 
and  cleansing  wounds  inflicted  by  stripes. 
In  Rev.  1 :  5,  it  denotes  the  cleansing  of  the 
sinner's  conscience  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 
Porphyry  uses  it  to  denote  the  purification  of 
maidens  about  to  be  married,  by  sprinkling 
them  with  water  brought  in  pitchers  for  the 
purpose;  and  Basil  uses  it  to  denote  the  pu- 
rification .of  a  sick  man  by  sprinkling  with 
water,  anointing  with  oil  and  invoking  upon 
him  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  then  the  command 
was  simply  to  wash,  cleanse  or  purify  in 
Jordan's  waters,  and  if  haptizo  denotes  the 
fulfilment  of  that  command,  the  point  is  set- 
tied,  that  baptizo  in  this  case  means  nothing 
more  (and  cannot  be  assigned  any  other 
sense)  than  simply  to  wash,  cleanse  or  purify. 
We  challenge  Dr.  Fuller  to  confine  himself 
to  this  instance  and  make  any  thing  else  out 
of  it. 

How  Naaman  executed  the  prophet's  com- 
mand is  of  no  importance.  He  may  have 
gone  into  the  stream  of  Jordan  and  literally 


93 

dipped  (he  affected  parts  which  he  expected 
the  man  of  God  to  touch,  or  he  may  have  sat 
down  to  perform  the  enjoined  ablution  upon 
the  shore  ;  but  if  he  even  went  in  and  totally- 
immersed  himself  seven  times,  it  does  not 
alter  the  case.  There  are  many  ways  of 
washing ;  and  it  was  still  a  baptism,  not  be- 
cause it  was  an  immersion,  but  because  it 
was  a  washing;  that  having  been  the  only- 
idea  in  the  prophet's  mind,  and  the  only  idea 
in  the  mind  of  the  historian  when  he  said 
that  Naaman  did  according  to  the  prophet's 
saying. 

And  we  are  also  fully  borne  out  in  this 
view  by  other  versions  of  the  Bible.  The 
old  Latin  version  of  Jerome,  made  more  than 
fourteen  hundred  years  ago,  has  lavo  where 
the  seventy  have  haptizo;  a  word  which 
means  simply  to  wash,  without  prescribing 
the  mode,  and  where  it  takes  in  any  allusion 
to  mode,  that  mode  is  to  besprinkle.  It 
also  has  the  judicial  sense  of  expiate  and 
clear.  A  total  immersion  is  quite  outside  of 
its  common  scope. 

The  German  Bible,  pronounced  one  of  the 
9 


94 

best  translations  that  have  ever  been  made, 
has  taitfen.  If  Luther  had  thought  that 
Naaman's  baptism  was  a  total  immersion, 
he  certainly  would  have  used  the  word  ver* 
senken,  or  unlertauchen. 

The   Dovvay  Bible  says,  "He  went  down 
and  washed  in  the  Jordan."     And  the  Cov 
erdale    Bible,   the   Geneva  Bible  and   Mat- 
thew's Bible,  ail   have  "washed''  instead  of 
dipped. 

Now,  putting  all  these  things  together,  are 
we  not  fully  authorized  to  say,  that  so  far  as 
baptizo  applies  10  the  cleansing  of  Naaman, 
it  no  more  means  "#  total  immersion  and 
nothing  else"  than  it  means  sprinkling  and 
nothing  else.  The  fact  is,  it  means  neither  ; 
but  simply  a  cleansing  or  purification.  This 
is  all  that  the  prophet  told  him  to  do;  and 
inspired  authority  tells  us  that  he  did  "  ac- 
cording   to  the   saying  of  the  man  of  God." 

A  third  passage  in  the  Septuagint  in  which 
baptizo  occurs  is  Judith  12  :  7,  where  it 
is  said  of  that  heroic  woman  that  ";she  went 
out  in  the  night  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia 
and  washed  (ebaptizeto)  herself  in  a  fountain 


95 

(paga — spring)  of  water  by  the  camp.  And 
when  she  came  out,  (Doway  version,  when 
she  came  up,)  she  besought  the  Lord  God  of 
Israel  to  direct  her  way."  What  does  this 
mean?  Dr.  Fuller  says,  "  She  is  purifying 
herself  for  a  great  and  glorious  deed  ;"  p.  39. 
Exactly  so ;  and  that  is  precisely  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  in  this  text.  The  Doway 
and  king  James'  versions  both  render  it  wash. 
The  German  version  has  it  wusch  sich.  And 
it  means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  cere- 
monial cleansing.  The  heroine  is  contem- 
plating the  deliverance  of  her  country  from 
a  ruthless  invader.  She  wishes  to  secure 
the  help  of  Israel's  God.  And  just  as  in  the 
case  of  Telemachus,  with  waters  from  the 
hoary  sea  shed  over  his  hands, 

'•'  The  royal  suppliant  to  Minerva  prayed," 
so  she  went  fasting  to  the  Bethulian  spring 
to  purify  herself  with  its  untainted  waters, 
fresh  from  their  source,  the  more  acceptably 
to  come  before  her  God.  All  idea  of  immer- 
sion in  the  spring  is  quite  out  of  the  question. 
But  in  order  to  make  the  case  yield  to  his 
tottering  cause,  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  this  pu- 


96 

rification  was  performed  "in  a  sequestered 
valley."  Not  so;  it  was  performed  at  a 
Spring  libuthe  camp;"  or  as  it  is  still  strong- 
er in  the  Greek,  "  in  the  camp" — en  ta  par- 
embola.  lie  says  that  it  was  done  in  the  pri- 
vacy of  the  "  night."  Not  so  ;  the  word  nux 
also  means  evening.  The  German  version 
has  it  abends.  And  the  account  stating  what 
occurred  after  the  purification  had  been  per- 
formed, says  expressly,  in  the  9th  verse,  "So 
she  came  in  clean,  and  remained  in  the  tent, 
until  she  did  eat  her  meat  at  evening." 
And  are  we  to  be  told,  that  a  beautiful  and 
chaste  woman  like  Judith  went  out  among 
a  vast  army  of  rude  and  unoccupied  soldiers 
in  the  evening  before  supper-time,  and  com- 
pletely immersed  herself  in  an  open  and  pub- 
lic spring,  and  that  for  three  successive  days? 
Let  the  thinking  judge  of  the  probability  of 
such  a  story  !  Dr.  Arnald,  in  his  comment- 
ary on  this  passage,  expresses  the  greatest 
astonishment  that  a  woman  of  such  beauty 
could  move  at  all  among  such  a  camp  with- 
out encountering  insult  and  violence.  What 
then  would  her  situation  have  been  if  we  add 


97 

the  bathing  of  her  naked  person  by  immer- 
sion at  nightfall  in  a  spring  to  which  the  sol- 
diers doubtless  came  to  quench  their  thirst! 
The  thing  cannot  be  ;  and  so  baptizo  cannot 
here  mean  to  immerse  and  nothing  else. 

But  Dr.  Fuller  can't  give  it  up.  The  pas- 
sage must  be  made  to  give  baptizo  the  mean- 
ing of  immerse,  even  though  he  should  have 
to  interpolate  the  record.  And  we  here,  pub- 
licly, boldly,  and  with  a  full  understanding 
of  what  we  are  about,  charge  interpolation 
upon  him.  Whether  he  has  done  it  igno- 
rantly  or  intentionally  is  not  for  us  to  decide. 

On  page  40  of  his  book  he  positively  as- 
serts, that  "As  if  to  leave  no  doubt,  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  that  she  came  out  of  the  wa- 
ter." He  gives  quotation  marks  and  all,  to 
have  us  believe  that  he  has  literally  trans- 
ferred these  words  from  the  record  to  his 
pages.  But  we  utterly,  peremptorily,  and 
without  qualification,  deny  that  there  is  any 
thing  any  where  in  this  account,  either  in 
Hebrew,  in  Greek,  in  Latin,  in  German  or 
in  English  that  says  aught  about  coming  out 
of  "  the  water.'9  The  only  thing  that  aflbrds 
9* 


98 

even  the  remotest  hint  in  that  direction  lies 
in  the  English  phrase  "and  when  she  came 
out  she  besought  the  Lord."  But  a  theory 
which  predicates  this  coming  out,  of  a  com- 
ing out  of  the  water,  cannot  stand  for  a  mo- 
ment. It  is  nowhere  said  that  she  ever  went 
into  the  water,  and  it  is  unnaturally  violent 
and  altogether  gratuitous  to  say  that  her  com- 
ing out  means  a  coming  "  out  of  the  water." 
What  she  came  out  of  was  of  course  what 
she  went  into;  and  it  is  expressly  said  that 
she  "went  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia."  Her 
coming  out  was  therefore  a  Doming  out  of 
"  the  valley  of  Bethulia." 

The  Vulgate  has  et  ut  ascendehat — and  as 
she  went  up,  or  as  soon  as  she  went  up — she 
prayed.  The  allusion  cannot  be  to  anything 
but  her  going  up  to  her  tent. 

The  Septuagint  has  kai  hos  aneha,  edeeto. 
Anebce  is  one  form  of  the  same  word  used  by 
Xenophon  to  dei.ote  a  military  expedition — 
certainly  a  very  different  thing  from  an 
emersion  from  a  plunge  in  the  water.  It  sig- 
nifies a  going  up  from  one  place  to  another. 
It  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote 


99 

Christ's  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  going  up  into 
the  mountain  to  pray,  going  up  into  the  tem- 
ple ;  the  going  up  of  the  disciples  to  the  feast ; 
Peter's  going  up  upon  the  housetop,  and  so 
on.  Homer  uses  it  again  and  again  to  denote 
the  act  of  penetrating  into  the  interior  of  a 
country,  and  of  advancing  towards  a  capital. 
And  we  avow  that  before  any  man  can  find 
emersion  in  it  he  will  first  have  to  put  it  there. 
Its  plainest  and  primary  meaning  is,  the  go- 
ing up  from  one  place  to  another;  and  as 
used  in  the  passage  before  us,  it  can  mean 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  going  up  of 
Judith  from  the  fountain  where  she  purified 
herself  to  the  tent  in  which  she  reposed,  in 
the  camp  of  Holofernes. 

And  the  German  version,  if  possible,  is 
still  more  conclusive.  It  cuts  off  even  the 
last  lingering  shadow  of  possibility  that  the 
phrase  might  perhaps  refer  to  a  coming  out 
of  the  water.  It  renders  it  all  by  the  adverb 
darnach — afterwards.  Having  purified  .her- 
self at  the  fountain  "  by  the  camp,  after- 
wards" i.  e.  after  her  purification  had  been 
completed,  and  she  was  again  on  her  way  to 


100 

her  allotted  place,  "afterwards  she  prayed  to 
the  Lord."  The  thing  is  too  plain  to  admit 
of  further  illustration. 

The  fourth  and  only  remaining  passage 
from  the  Septuagint  to  be  examined,  in  which 
baptizo  occurs,  is  Ecclesiasticus  34  :  25. 
"  He  that  washeth  {baplizomenos)  himself  af- 
ter the  touching  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch 
it  again  what  availeth  his  washing,"  (loutro.) 

Here  we  have  two  different  words  refer- 
ring to  precisely  the  same  thing;  and  which, 
so  far  as  this  text  is  concerned,  are  necessa- 
rily exact  synonyms  of  each  other.  We 
have  already  proven  that  louo,  one  of  the 
words  here  used,  denotes  the  general  idea  of 
washing  in  the  sense  of  purification.  It  is 
therefore  a  sufficient  injunction  upon  Dr. 
Fuller's  theory  of  the  meaning  of  baptizo  to 
know  that  the  seventy  here  use  it  as  the  ex- 
act synonym  of  louo.  For  as  louo  is  never 
used  to  denote  "  a  total  immersion  and  noth- 
ing-else," so  baptizo  cannot  mean  "a  total 
immersion  and  nothing  else"  where  it  is  used 
interchangeably  with  louo. 

But  we  go  further.     The  son  of  Sirach  is 


101 

talking  about  purification  from  the  contami* 
nating  touch  of  a  dead  body.  He  calls  that 
purification  a.  baptism.  And  we  now  assert 
that  the  vital,  prominent  and  essential  part 
of  that  purification  was  performed  by  sprink- 
ling and  by  sprinkling  alone.  Does  any  one 
doubt  it,  let  him  read  the  19th  chapter  of 
Numbers,  where  God  himself  lays  down  the 
law  in  this  case:  "And  whosoever  toucheth 
one  that  is  slain  with  the  sword  in  the  open 
field,  or  a  dead  body,  or  a  bone  of  a  man,  or 
a  grave,  shall  be  unclean  seven  days.  And 
for  an  unclean  person  they  shall  take  of  the 
ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for 
sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put  thereto 
in  a  vessel,  and  a  clean  person  shall  take 
hyssop  and  dip  it  in  the  water  and  sprinkle 
it  upon  him  that  toucheth  a  bone,  or  one  slain, 
or  one  dead,  or  a  grave,  and  the  clean  per- 
son shall  sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the 
third  day  and  on  the  seventh  day."  This  is 
the  statute  of  God  for  the  purification  of  a 
man  defiled  by  touching  the  dead,  and  the 
whole  of  it.  The  succeeding  verses  quoted 
by  Dr.   Fuller  about   washing  clothes  and 


102 

bathing,  refer  to  the  clean  person  who  does 
the  sprinkling,  and  not  to  the  one  defiled  for 
whom  the  sprinkling  was  done.  Let  the 
reader  compare  the  19th  with  the  21st  verse, 
where  this  bathing  is  expressly  referred  to 
the  administrator  and  not  to  the  subject,  and 
he  will  see  the  truth  of  our  statement.  Jo- 
sephus,  in  a  professed  and  minute  descrip- 
tion of  this  rite,  (Ant.  B.  4,  c.  4,  sec.  6,) 
says  nothing  about  washing  or  bathing  as  a 
part  of  it.  Philo,  in  a  similar  passage, 
speaks  only  of  sprinkling.  Or  if  any  still 
doubt,  we  bring  the  testimony  of  Paul,  who 
says  expressly  that  it  was  the  ashes  of  an 
heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean  that  sanctified 
to  the  purification  of  the  flesh.  Heb.  9  :13. 

Here  then  is  a  purification  from  which 
every  thing  like  immersion  is  utterly  exclud- 
ed. And  this  particular  purification  the  son 
of  Sirach,  according  to  the  seventy,  denotes 
by  the  word  haptizo! 

The  demonstration  is  therefore  complete, 
that  baptizo,  as  used  in  the  Septuagint,  does 
not  denote  "  a  total  immersion  and  nothing 
else,"  but  has  assigned   to  it  that  nobler  and 


103 

higher  sense  for  which  it  was  chosen  to  de- 
signate the  foundation  ordinance  of  christian- 
ity — the  sense  of  purification. 

How  remarkable,  that  the  very  moment 
we  begin  to  touch  upon  ground,  even  though 
but  remotely  connected  with  Christianity,  the 
word  that  is  always  used  to  denote  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  at  once  assumes  a  settled 
religious  sense,  from  which,  when  applied  to 
this  sacrament,  as  we  shall  see,  it  never  de- 
parts ! 


104 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

Bapto  in  the  Septuagint — in  the  old  classics— 
in  the  New  Testament — Dr.  Fuller  an- 
swered on  his  own  'premises — Post-Script. 

We  have  thus  far  established,  from  the 
lexicographers,  from  the  fathers  and  from 
the  Septuagint,  that  baptizo  has  other  mean- 
ings than  the  exclusive  signification  of  "a 
total  immersion."  We  desire  now,  before 
leaving  the  Septuagint,  to  make  some  re- 
marks upon  the  word  bapto,  the  root  from 
which  baptizo  is  formed. 

Dr.  Fuller  tells  us  that  "  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  bapto"  And  yet,  on  the  very 
same  page,  he  sets  out  to  build  an  argument 
upon  it  to  prove  that  baptizo  "  denotes  a  total 
immersion  and  has  no  other  meaning."  He 
has  therefore  himself  opened  this  field,  and 
we  cheerfully  enter  it,  to  show  that  upon  his 
own  principles  baptizo  has  other  meanings 
than  to  immerse* 

He  tells  us  that  "  in  the  Greek  language 


105 

the  addition  of  zo  enforces  the  primitive 
verb;"  that  "  it  imparts  a  peculiar  signifi- 
cancy  and  seems  generally  to  denote  the 
transferring  to  another,  or  performing  upon 
another,  the  thing  designated  ;"  p.  12.  We 
have  shown,  in  chapter  third,  that  in  this 
he  is  mistaken ;  that  the  addition  of  zo  is  a 
mere  provincial  variation  of  the  original 
word,  without  a  variation  of  the  sense,  or 
that  it  denotes  something  only  approximative 
to  the  thing  signified  in  the  primitive  word. 
We  would  therefore  be  rightfully  entitled  to 
proceed  upon  these  established  premises  in 
the  argument  which  we  are  about  to  submit ; 
but  we  are  willing  here  to  surrender  this 
right  and  to  give  him  all  the  advantages  of 
his  untenable  positions.  We  can  afford  to 
be  generous  in  such  a  cause.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  testing  his  logic,  and  be  it  under- 
stood,  for  this  alone,  we  now  grant  him  that 
"the  addition  of  zo  enforces  the  primitive 
verb."'  Hfi  certainly  will  not  contend,  how- 
ever, that  the  addition  of  zo  enforces  a  mean- 
ing which  is  not  in  the  primitive  verb.  The 
meaning  must  be  there  before  zo  can  enforce 
10 


106 

it.  The  thincr  must  be  signified  before  zo 
can  denote  its'  transferment  or  performance 
upon  another.  This  is  one  of  the  plainest 
axioms  of  common  sense,  that  no  man  can 
bring  out  of  a  thing  what  it  does  not  contain. 
If  then  we  can  show  clear  and  unmistakable 
instances  in  which  bctpto  does  not  and  from 
the  nature  of  things  cannot  mean  immersion, 
of  course  no  additions  of  zo  can  inspire  it 
with  this  signification  ;  and  therefore  bapti^o 
does  not  always  mean  to  immerse  and  noth- 
ing else. 

Is  there  any  evidence  then  of  the  use  of 
bapto  where  immersion  cannot  be  its  mean- 
ing  ?  We  have  just  been  referring  to.  the 
Septuagint  ;  we  will  therefore  take  it  up 
first. 

In  Daniel  4 :  33,  (we  give  the  reference 
as  in  the  English  Bible,)  it  is  written,  "  And 
he  (Nebuchadnezzar)  was  driven  from  men 
and  did  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  his  body  was 
wet  (ebaphse)  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  Also 
in  Daniel  5  :  21,  "  And  his  heart  was  made 
like  the  beasts  and  his  dwelling  was  with 
the  wild  asses ;  they  fed  him  with  grass  like 


107 

oxen  and  his  body  was  wet  (ebaphse)  with 
the  dew  of  heaven."  Here  is  bapto  in  two 
instances,  in  both  of  which  it  signifies  the 
gentle  moistening  of  an  exposed  body  by  the 
falling  of  the  dew.  Apply  zo  then,  after 
the  fashion  of  Dr.  Fuller's  examples  :  bapto, 
to  wet  with  falling  dew ;  baptizo,  to  make 
one  wet  with  falling  dew.  Is  the  making  of 
one  wet  with  falling  dew  a  total  immersion 
and  nothing  else  ? 

In  Leviticus,  14 :  4,  6,  we  have  these 
words,  "  Then  shall  the  priest  command  to 
take  for  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  two  birds 
alive  and  clean,  and  cedar  wood,  and  scar- 
let, and  hyssop  ;  and  the  priest  shall  com- 
mand that  one  of  the  birds  be  killed  in  an 
earthen  vessel,  over  running  water.  As  for 
the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar 
wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and 
shall  dip  (bapsei)  them  and  the  living  bird  in 
the  blood  of  the  bird  that  ivas  killed"  Is 
there  any  possibility  of  a  total  immersion  in 
this  case  ?  How  cart  you  immerse  a  living 
bird,  cedar  wood,  scarlet  and  hyssop  in  the 
blood   of  a  single   bird  ?     Add  zo  then  and 


108 

enforce  the  meaning  of  the  primitive  verb, 
and  yet  how  far  are  you  from  every  thing 
like  immersion  ? 

Dr.  Fuller  is  evidently  troubled  with  this 
passage,  and  disposes  of  it  in  the  same  rep- 
rehensible method  in  which  he  disposed  of 
Isaiah's  fright  and  Judith's  purification.  We 
regret  extremely  to  be  compelled  to  expose 
such  uncandid  and  inexcusable  procedure  in 
a  professed  Christian  minister.  An  honest 
man,  however,  preferring  serious  charges 
against  the  great  body  of  the  Christian 
Church,  ought  certainly  to  be  held  to  treat 
at  least  the  inspired  record  with  reverence 
and  fidelity.  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  he  "  trem- 
bles when  he  remembers  the  language  of 
God  as  to  him  who  adds  to  or  takes  from  the 
words  of  the  Bible;"  p.  51.  Why  did  he 
then  forget  that  language  when  he  came  to 
comment  upon  the  passage  which  we  have 
just  quoted  from  Leviticus?  On  page  45, 
under  express  pretensions  of  being  honest 
where  he  charges  that  others  were  not,  he 
records  these  words  :  "  If  my  readers  will 
refer  to  the  chapter  (quoted  above)  they  will 


109 

see  that  water  was  to  be  taken  from  a  running 
stream  in  some  vessel^  and  into  this  water  the 
Hood  of  the  bird  was  to  fall.  Into  this  vessel 
the  dipping  was  to  be  performed."  Oh,  Dr. 
Fuller!  Dr.  Fuller!  how  could  you  give 
such  solemn  utterance  to  such  barefaced  and 
downright  untruth  1  Your  effort  to  hide  it 
under  a  reference  to  verses  50,  51,  will  not 
avail.  Those  verses  refer  to  the  cleansing 
of  a  house;  the  case  in  point  refers  to  the 
cleansing  of  a  man.  And  even  in  those 
verses  you  know  as  well  as  we  do  that  there 
is  not  one  word  said  about  talcing  water  from 
a  running  stream  in  a  vessel,  or  of  dropping 
the  blood  of  the  slain  bird  in  "  a  vessel  of 
running  ivater"*  What  a  resort  to  carry  a 
narrow  sectarian  cause !  "  How  awful  a 
thing  thus  to  misguide  men  !"  We  ask  no 
man  to  take  our  statements  without  .exam- 
ination. We  challenge  the  strictest  investi- 
gation. We  invite  every  reader  to  take  the 
Bible,  we  care  not  what  version,  and  to  com- 
pare the  45th  page   of  "  Fuller  on  Baptism 

*  We  have  heard  of  earthen,  wooden  and  brazen  vessels, 
but  what  '■'■vessels  of  running  uater"  are,  remains  for  Dr. 
Fuller  to  explain. 

10* 


110 

and  the  Terms  of  Communion,"  3d  edition, 
1354,  (the  very  edition  which  "Justice"  calls 
"the  revised?)  with  the  14th  chapter  of  Le- 
viticus, and  convince*  himself  that  we  are 
setting  forth  the  truth.  No,  no,  no ;  there 
is  no  •' vessel  of  running  water,"  or  any- 
other  kind  of  water,  in  the  case.  The 
"earthen  vessel"  and  the  dying  bird  in  it 
were  only  to  be  held  "  over  running  wat- 
er." The  living  bird,  and  the  cedar  wood, 
and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  all  were  to 
be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  one  slain  bird,  and 
in  that  blood  unmingled  with  any  thing  else. 
That  dipping  is  denoted  by  the  word  bapto. 
And  you  may  add  zos  by  the  cart-load  to 
enforce  the  meaning  of  the  primitive  verb, 
and  you  will  still  be  as  far  from  "a  total 
immersion"  as  the  equator  is  from  the  poles. 
This  then  is  the  way  in  which  Dr.  Fuller 
has  u  ascertained"  that  "baptizo  signifies  to 
immerse  and  has  no  other  meaning,"  and 
that  the  great  body  of  the  Church  is  in  a 
state  o^  positive  disobedience  to  Christ's  ex- 
plicit  command,  unfit  to  be  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  table  and  without  a  well-founded 
hope  of  heaven  !     Is  it  not  too  bad  ? 


Ill 

In  Joshua  3  :  15,  we  have  this  record  : 
''And  as  they  that  bare  the  ark  were  come 
unto  Jordan,  and  the  feet  of  the  priests  that 
bare  the  ark  were  dipped  (ebaphsesan)  in  the 
brim  of  the  water,  .  .  the  waters  which 
came  down  from  above  stood  and  rose  up 
upon  an  heap,  .  .  and  the  priests  that 
bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord 
stood  firm  on  dry  ground  in  the  midst  of  Jor- 
dan, and  all  the  Israelites  passed  over  on  dry 
ground"  Here  the  mere  touching  of  the 
priests'  feet  "in  the  brim"  of  Jordan's  out- 
spread waters,  and  from  which  touch  those 
waters  instantly  shrank  away,  so  as  to  leave 
dry  ground  from  shore  to  shore,  is  denoted 
by  bapto.  Apply  zo  then  and  enforce  the 
meaning;  but  where  is  the  total  immersion? 

In  1  Samuel  14  :  27,  Jonathan  "  put  forth 
the  end  of  the  rod  that  was  in  his  hand  and 
dipped  (ebapsen)  it  in  an  honey-comb."  In 
Deuteronomy  33  :  24,  Moses  prays  for  Ash- 
er,  "  and  let  him  dip  (bapsei)  his  foot  in  oil." 
In  neither  of  these  instances  is  a  total  im- 
mersion signified ;  neither  will  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  meaning  by  the  addition  of  zo 
make  it  a  total  immersion. 


112 

So  much  then  for  the  Septuagint.  Dr. 
Fuller  is  particularly  fond  of  illustrations 
from  the  heathen  classics.  All  his  principal 
quotations  to  prove  that  baptizo  means  to 
immerse  are  drawn  from  this  source.  As 
we  all  admit  that  bapto  and  baptizo  often  do 
mean  to  immerse,  especially  in  the  writings 
of  the  old  heathen  Greeks,  we  have  not 
thought  it  worth  while  to  test  the  accuracy 
of  those  quotations.  But  as  that  is  the  great 
store-house  of  his  ammunition,  we  will  now 
take  a  glance  in  that  direction,  to  see  wheth- 
er we  cannot  show  upon  his  own  avowed 
principles  that  baptizo  does  not  always  sig- 
nify a  total  immersion. 

Tn  Arrian's  "History  of  Alexander  the 
Great"  we  foave  this  sentence:  CiNearchus 
relates  that  the  Indians  dye  (baptontai)  their 
learcls."  Here  all  idea  of  immersion  is 
certainly  excluded ;  and  all  the  intensity 
which  the  addition  of  a  thousand  zos  can 
give  to  bapto  in  this  sentence  cannot  make  it 
mean  immersion. 

Some  where  in  Hypocrates,  (we  are  not 
very  particular  about  references,  as  we  have 


113 

high  Baptist  authority  for  these  passages,) 
some  where  in  Hypocrates  we  have  this  re- 
mark:  "When  it  drops  upon  the  garments 
they  are  (baptetai)  dyed"  Dr.  Fuller  says 
that  bapto  means  to  dye  because  dyeing  is  by 
immersion;"  p.  33.  In  this  passage  he  is 
flatly  contradicted,  as  the  dyeing  is  by  drop- 
ping. There  is  no  immersion  about  it,  and 
the  addition  of  zo  cannot  make  it  immersion 
by  enforcing  the  meaning  of  the  primitive 
verb. 

In  the  third  book  of  "  The  Battle  of  the 
Frogs  and  Mice  "we  have  an  account  of  the 
slaughter  of  a  mouse  and  of  the  effect  of  his 
blood  upon  the  lake  in  which  the  frogs  dwelt. 
We  give  Pope's  translation: 

"  Gasping  he  rolls;  a  purple  stream  of  blood 
Distains  (ebapteto)  the  surface  of  the  silver  flood." 

Would  Dr.  Fuller  have  us  believe  that  the 
blood  of  a  mouse,  great  and  brave  as  that 
mouse*  was,  totally  immersed  the  lake  ?  We 
quote  from  his  own  authority,  and  Baptist 
authority  at  that,  "  To  suppose  that  there  is 

*  C.  Taylor  thinks  Crambophagus,  a  frog,  and  not  a  mouse. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  it  will  not  augment  the  supply  of  blood. 


114 

here  any  extravagant  allusion  to  the  literal 
immersion  or  dipping  of  a  lake  is  a  monstrous 
perversion  of  taste.  (So  we  would  think.) 
The  lake  is  said  to  be  dyed,  not  dipped. 
There  is  in  the  word  no  reference  to  mode. 
What  a  monstrous  paradox  in  rhetoric  is  the 
figuring  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood 
of  a  mouse  !  .  .  Never  was  there  such  a 
figure.  The  lake  is  not  said  to  be  dipped  in 
Hood,  but  to  be  dyed  with  blood.'*  Carson 
on  Baptism,  p.  67.  Very  well  said,  and 
very  much  to  our  purpose.  Bapto  in  this 
case  then  means  only  to  stain  or  color  slight- 
ly, without  reference  to  mode;  and  how  can 
the  enforcement  of  this  meaning  give  us  a 
total  immersion  ? 

But  we  pass  by  other  instances  from  the 
classics  to  refer  to  a  few  passages  in  the 
New  Testament. 

In  Matthew,  26  :  23,  the  Saviour  says, 
"He  that  dippelh  (embapsas)  his  hand  with 
me  in  the  dish,  the  same  shall  betray  me." 
Suppose  now  that  the  Saviour  and  his  disci- 
ples had  before  them  a  large  vessel  filled 
with  liquid  food;  for  if  it  was  not  liquid,  all 


115 

possibility  of  immersion  is  excluded  ;  are  we 
to  suppose  that  he  and  Judas  both  together, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  partaking  of  a  meal, 
totally  immersed  their  hands  {taen  cheira)  in 
it  ?  The  idea  is  preposterous.  Baplo  then 
cannot  here  mean  immerse,  and  neither  can 
zo  give  it  such  a  meaning. 

In  Revelation,  19  :  13,  John  says  of  Him 
who  is  faithful  and  true  :  w  And  he  was 
clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped  (bebammenon) 
in  blood."  Of  course  it  was  not  a  vesture 
totally  immersed  in  blood.  The  figure  is 
that  of  a  conqueror  from  the  field  of  battle, 
with  his  clothing  stained  with  the  blood  of 
his  slain  foes.  The  allusion  of  the  passage 
seems  plainly  to  be  to  Isaiah,  63  :  2,  3, 
"  Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel, 
and  thy  garments  like  lum  that  treadeth  in  the 
loine-fat  ?  I  have  trodden  the  wine-press 
alone ;  and  of  the  people  there  was  none 
with  me  ;  for  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  an- 
ger and  trample  them  in  my  fury,  and  their 
blood  shall  be  sprinkled  upon  my  garments, 
and  I  will  stain  all  my  raiment." 

It  was  the  remark  of  Edwards:  "I  will 


116 

say  thus  much  of  the  term  baplo,  that  it  is  a 
term  of  such  latitude  that  he  who  shall  at- 
tempt to  prove,  from  its  use  in  various  au- 
thors, an  ahsolute  and  total  immersion,  will 
find  he  has  undertaken  that  which  he  cannot 
finally  perform."  Have  we  not  made  good 
the  accuracy  of  that  statement  ?  Is  it  not 
established  beyond  confutation  and  rational 
controversy,  even  upon  Dr.  Fuller's  own 
principles — principles  arbitrarily  manufac- 
tured and  laid  down  to  meet  the  wants  of 
this  particular  case — that  his  doctrine,  that 
baptizo  signifies  immerse  and  nothing  else, 
is  a  mere  groundless  assumption,  to  say  the 
very  least?  We  certainly  have  shown,  from 
the  Septuagint,  from  the  heathen  classics  and 
from  the  New  Testament,  (and  we  might  do 
the  same  from  the  Greek  fathers,)  that  bapto 
is  used  in  places  where  it  can  by  no  possi- 
bility mean  immersion.  According  to  Dr. 
Fuller's  own  statements  the  addition  of  zo 
can  do  no  more  than  enforce  the  primitive 
verb,  and  only  has  the  significancy  of  trans- 
ferring to  another  or  performing  upon  anoth- 
er the  thing  designated.     So  that  it  follows 


117 

upon  these  grounds,  with  mathematical  cer- 
tainty, that  baplo  with  zo,  or  baptizo,  cannot 
always  mean  to  immerse  and  nothing  else. 
With  entire  safety  we  might  rest  the  cause 
of  our  defence  upon  this  one  argument  alone. 
Dr.  Fuller  then  has  been  fairly  and  com- 
pletely met, — met  upon  his  own  ground, — 
refuted  upon  his  own  premises.  And  when 
we  come  to  take  advantage  of  what  we  have 
established  against  his  doctrine  of  the  force 
of  zo  in  Greek,  and  argue,  as  we  have  a 
right  to  argue,  upon  the  premises  that  the 
addition  of  zo  is  a  mere  provincial  variation 
of  the  original  verb,  without  a  variation  of 
the  sense,  or  that  it  denotes  only  an  approx- 
imation to  the  thing  signified  in  the  primitive 
word,  the  conclusion  comes  with  still  more 
overwhelming  force.  For  if  baplo  is  thus 
used  where  the  idea  of  immersion  cannot  be 
admitted,  and  the  addition  of  zo,  making 
baptizo,  does  not  alter  its  force  of  significa- 
tion, except  to  weaken  and  modify  it,  it  is 
as  clear  as  the  sun  in  the  heavens  that  bap- 
tizo does  not  and  cannot  always  mean  im- 
merse and  nothing  else. 
11 


118 

Ought  not  Dr.  Fuller  then  to  acknowledge 
his  mistake  and  renounce  a  position  which, 
as  he  alleges,  it  gives  him  great  pain  to 
hold  ?  When  he  finds  himself  in  error  ought 
he  not  to  retract  it  ?  Has  he  not  bound  him- 
self  on  page  2  to  confess  the  flaw  when 
shown  to  him  ?  We  have  now  shown  him 
flaws  in  his  logic,  and  flaws  in  his  Greek 
criticisms,  and  flaws  on  the  score  of  honest 
dealing  with  the  Scriptures;  and  we  call 
upon  him  to  redeem  his  promise.  Will  he 
do  it  ?  Or  will  he  still  persist  to  put  the 
truthless  assertions  of  men  for  the  high  com- 
mand  of  God  1  Will  he  continue  to  preach 
and  write  that  where  there  is  no  immersion 
there  is  no  baptism — no  proper  church — no 
right  to  the  Holy  Supper,  and  no  sure  prom- 
ise of  eternal  life  ?     Time  will  show. 

POST-SCRIPT. 

We  feel  constrained  here  to  retard  the 
progress  of  the  reader  with  another  episode. 
After  the  first  several  chapters  of  our  Re- 
view had  gone  before  the  public,  an  effort 
was  made  through  the  Baptist  press  of  Balti- 


119 

more,  to  break  the  force  of  our  articles  and 
to  forestall  public  judgment  by  a  flippant 
and  wholesale  denunciation  of  our  competen- 
cy, honesty,  logic,  learning,  trustworthiness, 
and  temper.  The  writer  of  that  denuncia- 
tion, (most  likely  Dr.  Fuller  himself,)  makes 
out  sundry  charges  against  us  to  the  effect, 
and  on  the  grounds,  as  follows  : — 

1.  That  we  are  unfair,  because  we  began 
our  Review  with  the  second  and  not  the 
third  edition  of  Dr.  Fuller's  book,  although 
we  had  given  to  the  public  a  full  statement 
of  the  facts  in  the  case.     See  page  44. 

2.  That  our  temper  is  reprehensible,  for- 
sooth, because  he  alleges  it  is  "impossible 
for  Pedobaptists  ever  to  touch  this  question, 
without  becoming  nervously  violent  !" 

3.  That  we  are  totally  ignorant,  produ- 
cing nothing  which  "can  impose  on  a  child," 
except,  "a  passage  from  Clement,"  which, 
he  tells  us,  "was  promptly  exposed  in  Bos- 
ton as  soon  as  Dr.  Beecher  ventured  it." — 
How  "exposed  ?"  By  proving  the  passage 
spurious  ?  No.  By  what  process  ?  By 
alleging   that   the    words   Epi   Koitae,   (by 


120 

Hervetus  and  Dr.  Beecher  translated  on  a 
couch,  and  which  admit  of  no  other  intelli- 
gible translation,)  "  do  not  mean  upon  a 
couch  at  dinner,  but  on  rising  from  bed  after 
sleeping  together,"  and  that  Archbishop 
Potter  sustains  this  rendering  ! 

4.  That  we  are  guilty  of  absolute  falsifi- 
cation, when  we  say  that  Schrevelius  gives 
"to  Besprinkle,"  as  a  meaning  of  Baptizo, 
because  Schrevelius  gave  it  "in  Latin  and 
not  in  English  !'  (By  turning  to  page  55, 
the  reader  will  see  that  we  gave  the  Latin 
along  with  the  English,)  and  because,  as 
our  assailant  alleges,  "  no  decent  lexicog- 
rapher ever  gave  such  a  definition  (as 
besprinkle)  to  Baptizo  !" 

5.  That  we  are  traitorous  to  Luther, 
because  he  says  "The  term  Baptism  is  a 
Greek  word,  which  may  be  rendered  into 
Latin  by  mersio  /"     A  ad, 

6.  That  we  are  warring  against  our  own 
distinguished  theologians,  because  Storr  and 
Flatt,  in  Dr.  Schmucker's  translation  of 
their  Biblical  Theology,  are  represented  as 
saying  that  "the  disciples  of  our  Lord  un- 


121 

derstood  his  command  as  enjoining  immer- 
sion ! " 

To  these  charges  and  specifications  we 
made  the  following  reference  in  a  Post- 
Script to  one  of  our  articles  : 

"  Our  Review  seems  to  be  creating  "no 
small  stir"  among  those  of  whose  views  and 
logic  we  have  ventured  to  speak.  "Jus- 
tice"  is  ryled  that  we  did  not  undertake  to 
review  an  edition  of  Dr.  Fuller's  book  which 
did  not  exist  when  we  undertook  this  busi- 
ness !  A  Baptist  paper  in  Baltimore,  (char- 
acteristically called  "  The  True  Union,'' 
whilst  scrupulously  devoted  to  the  veriest 
sectarianism,)  hastes  to  inform  its  readers, 
before  hearing  one  third  of  what  we  have  to 
say,  that  we  are  "evidently  verdant,"  "ner- 
vously violent"  "  ignorant  copyists  of  ex- 
ploded passages  from  Dr.  Beecher,"  "know 
nothing  about  it,"  stale  what  "is  absolutely 
false"  "make  false  statements  of  the  Lexi- 
cons," "scarce  deserve  even  a  passing  no- 
tice," and  various  other  things  equally 
"amiable  in  defence  of  error!"  We  hope 
these  gentlemen  will  try  to  make  themselves 
11* 


122 

easy  until  our  review  has  been  completed. 
They  will  have  ample  room,  and  a  better 
opportunity  to  understand  and  to  answer  it, 
when  once  they  have  seen  it.  We  assure 
ihem  that  none  of  these  side-flings  will  divert 
us  from  our  fixed  purpose,  to  defend  the  great 
body  of  the  fold  of  Jesus  from  the  assault 
which  Dr.  Fuller  has  made  upon  our  Chris- 
tianity and  religious  hope.  We  have  hold 
of  the  champion  of  these  True  Unionists  ; 
and  why  should  we  let  him  go  to  pursue  a 
few  mosquitoes  ?  But  if  these  side-Ungs 
cannot  restrain  themselves  until  we  are  done 
with  Dr.  Fuller,  let  them  exercise  mean- 
while in  the  following  catechism: 

1.  Did  not  Clement  write  the  passage  we 
gave  from  him  ? 

2.  Are  the  other  thirteen  passages  spuri- 
ous or  genuine  ? 

3.  Who  exploded  Dr.  Beecher's  unan- 
swerable book  on  Baptism? 

4.  Did  not  the  Jews  sleep  on  the  same 
beds  or  couches  on  which  they  reclined  to 
eat? 

5.  Where  does  epi  koitx — on  a  couch — 


123 

ever  mean  "  after  rising  from  the  led  in  the 
morning"  or  any  thing  like  it  ? 

6.  Did  we  not  give  Schrevelius'  definition 
in  Latin,  mergo,  abluo.  lavo  ? 

7.  Does  lavo  never  mean  "  to  besprinkle  V 

8.  Are  Scapula,  Parkhurst,  Schrevelius 
and  Passow  "decent  lexicographers  ?" 

9.  Did  Luther,  Storr,  Flatt  or  Schmucker 
ever  express  themselves  dissatisfied  with  the 
validity  of  their  own  baptism,  because  it  was 
not  performed  by  immersion  ? 

10.  Were  Luther,  Melancthon,  Knox  and 
their  coadjutors  true  Christians? 

11.  If  they  were  true  Christians,  why 
would  Baptists  exclude  them  or  their  pious 
followers  from  the  Lord's  Supper? 

12.  Can  that  be  a  safe  Church  which 
refuses  communion  with  Christ's  people? 


124 


CHAPTER  IX. 

An  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  lustrations 
and  purifications  enjoined  in  the  Mosaic 
law — No  immersions  required — Bathing — 

Sprinkling   specifically    prescribed Ml 

these  various  purifications  and   catharisms 
called  Baptisms  in  the  Neiv  Testament. 

We  hope  that  the  reader  will  not  become 
impatient  under  the  unavoidable  tediousness 
of  our  Review.  Dr.  Fuller  has  marked  out 
a  wide  field  and  we  are  pledged  to  traverse 
it  with  him.  It  is  also  much  easier  to  make 
assertions  than  to  exhibit  the  proofs  of  their 
truth  or  falseness.  The  Deity  of  Christ  may- 
be denied  in  a  single  sentence  ;  but  to  give 
expression  to  all  the  mighty  evidences  upon 
which  this  central  truth  of  the  gospel  rests 
would  require  a  volume.  A  statement  made 
in  a  few  words  may  abound  with  error ;  but 
to  refute  it  and  set  it  in  its  true  light,  time 
and  toil  and  space  are  indispensable. 

We  are  now  about  to  institute  an  inquiry 


125 

into  the  use  oflaptizo  and  its  congnate  words 
in  the  New  Testament,  to  see  whether  they 
always  mean  immerse  and  nothing  else. 
But  before  entering  directly  upon  this  de- 
partment of  our  investigation,  we  desire  to 
raise  and  explain  a  preliminary  question, 
which  enters  into  it  very  deeply,  and  by  a 
proper  understanding  of  which  we  will  so 
clear  our  way  as  to  be  less  subject  to  inter- 
ruptions. 

Most  of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which  baptizo  occurs,  without  refer- 
ence to  John's  baptism  or  to  the  Christian 
sacrament,  refer  to  the  purifications  and 
lustrations  enjoined  in  the  law  of  Moses. 
It  therefore  becomes  exceedingly  import- 
ant to  know  exactly  what  those  purifying 
ordinances  of  Moses  were;  for  it  is  by  the 
character  of  those  Jewish  rites  that  we  are 
to  determine  the  general  signification  of  the 
words  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment employ  to  designate  them.  If  they 
were  certainly  and  clearly  nothing  but  total 
immersions,  then  the  word  baptizo,  when  used 
by  the  inspired  penman  to  designate  them, 


126 

must  mean  a  total  immersion  and  noth- 
ing else  ;  and  so,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they 
were  simple  expiations  or  legal  purifications, 
most  of  which  were  to  be  performed  by 
sprinkling,  and  the  rest  by  simple  washing 
or  bathing,  without  reference  to  mode,  then 
baptizo,  when  used  to  designate  them,  must 
take  the  general  scope  of  purification  as  its 
great  and  leading  idea,  without  being  limited 
to  sprinkling,  perfusion,  hand-washing  or 
immersing,  but  comprehending  all  these 
modes. 

What  then  is  the  fact  with  reference  to 
this  matter  ?  Dr.  Fuller  no  where  fairly 
meets  this  inquiry.  He  proceeds  as  if  it 
were  a  thing  entirely  settled  and  universally 
agreed,  that  all  the  purifications  of  the  Mo- 
saic law,  designated  in  the  New  Testament 
by  baptizo  and  baptismos,  were  total  immer- 
sions and  nothing  else.  Here  and  there,  as 
occasion  seems  to  demand  and  where  noth- 
ing else  would  save  his  cause,  he  throws  in 
a  quotation  or  two  from  authors  who  had 
before  them  a  very  different  subject  of  in- 
quiry, and  some  of  them  from  books  which 


127 

we  fear  he  never  saw,  all  to  leave  the  im- 
pression upon  his  reader's  mind  that  all  these 
legal  baptisms  were  clearly,  decidedly  and 
on  all  hands  admitted  to  be  nothing  but  total 
immersions ! 

We  propose  then  to  brush  away  these  cob- 
webs of  a  perverted  erudition;  and  in  doing 
so,  we  will  go  at  once  to  the  high,  pure  and 
infallible  authority  of  God's  own  word,  leav- 
ing Dr.  Fuller  with  Maimonides  and  the 
Targums,  groping  his  way  amid  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  elders,  for  the  sake  of  which  he 
is  not  the  first  to  set  aside  the  commandment 
of  God.  We  deny,  and  we  challenge  the 
production  of  scriptural  proof  to  the  contrary, 
that  there  is,  any  where  in  the  Mosaic  rit- 
ual, any  law  enjoining  upon  the  Jews  the 
necessity  of  totally  immersing  themselves.  In 
all  the  five  books  of  Moses,  so  far  as  we  have 
learned,  the  Hebrew  word  for  immerse  (tha- 
bal)  is  not  used  in  one  single  instance  where 
the  washing  and  purification  of  persons  is 
enjoined,  nor  any  other  word  of  correspond- 
ing import.  So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to 
examine,  all  these  lustrations  of  men,  with- 


128 

out  even  one  exception,  are  enjoined  by  the 
word  rahatz,  which  signifies  to  wash  or  puri- 
fy, without  reference  to  mode. 

This  word  rahatz  is  rendered  in  our 
English  Bible  by  the  word  wash,  sometimes 
bathe.  Dr.  Fuller  admits  and  contends  that 
the  command  to  wash  is  not  a  command  either 
to  sprinkle,  pour  or  dip;  that  "it  is  a  com- 
mand to  wash  and  nothing  else ;  and  that 
cl  washing  is  more  than,  and  may  be  performed 
without,  either  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  dip- 
ping ;"  p.  15.  We  argue  then,  as  these 
Levitical  baptisms  were  mere  washings  and 
nothing  else,  so  far  as  God's  injunction  goes, 
they  were  not  immersions,  any  more  than 
sprinklings  or  any  other  special  mode  of 
purifying  with  water. 

The  word  bathe,  which  occurs  in  a  few 
cases  in  the  English  version  of  these  laws 
of  Levitical  purifications,  might  at  first  seem 
to  indicate  that  they  were  to  be  performed 
by  immersion.  But  in  the  original  the  word 
is  always  rahatz,  the  same  that  is  rendered 
wash.  Neither  does  bathe  necessarily  con- 
vey the  idea  of  immersion.     It  is  from  the 


1-29 

Saxon  bathian,  which  means  simply  to  wash* 
It  contains  no  indication  of  mode.  We  may 
bathe  by  sprinkling,  rubbing  or  suffusion,  as 
well  as  by  plunging.  We  have  many  more 
shower-baths  and  sponge-bath3  than  plunge- 
baths.  To  be  bathed  in  tears  certainly  does 
not  mean  totally  immersed  in  tears.  To 
bathe  a  wound  is  not  to  immerse  it,  but  to 
moisten  it  with  lotion  or  to  wash  it. 

Now  we  assert  that  if  any  of  these  Leviti- 
cal  lustrations  were  total  immersions  and 
nothing  else,  that  fact  must  be  found  in  the 
Hebrew  word  rahatz ;  for  this  is  the  only 
word  by  which  they  are  signified  in  all  of 
those  cases  where  the  express  mode  of  the 
purification  is  not  given.  This  word  is 
usually  rendered  wash  in  the  English  Bible. 
"  How  much  of  an  ablution  is  properly  im- 
plied by  the  term,"  Professor  Bush  remarks, 
"it  is  difficult  to  say.  That  it  does  not  indi- 
cate a  complete  immersion  of  the  body  in 
water  would  seem  evident  from  the  fact  that 
we  read  of  no  provision  being  made  for  such 
a  rite,  either  in  the  holy  place  or  in  the  court 
of  the  tabernacle."  In  the  Septuagint  it  is 
12 


130 

sometimes  rendered  huo,  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  means  simply  to  cleanse  or  wash ; 
sometimes  by  niptn,  which  means  hand-wash- 
ing,  and  sometimes  by  pluno,  which  has  only 
the  general  signification  of  wash,  rinse  or 
wet.  None  of  these  words  prescribe  mode, 
and  no  more  mean  to  immerse  than  they 
mean  to  pour  upon,  or  to  sprinkle,  or  to  ap. 
ply  water  in  any  other  manner  for  the  pur- 
pose  of  cleansing. 

To  obtain  a  clear  conception  of  the  mean- 
ing  and  scope  of  rahatz,  and  to  see  how  far 
it  is  from  denoting  immersion  and  nothing 
else,  let  the  reader  examine  the  following 
passages,  in  which  it  is  used: 

"  Let  a  little  water,  I  pray  you,  be  fetched, 
and  wash  (rahatz)  your  feet;"   Gen.   18:  4. 

"And  he  entered  into  his  chamber  and 
wept  there,  and  he  washed  (rahatz)  his  face 
and  went  out  ;"■  Gen.  43  :  30,  31. 

"  And  thou  shalt  cut  the  ram  in  pieces  and 
wash  (rahatz)  the  inwards  of  him;"  Exodus 
29:  17. 

"  I  will  ivash  (rahatz)  my  hands  in  inno» 
cency ;"  Is.  2b"  :  6. 


131 

"Purge  me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be 
clean  ;  wash  (rahatz)  me  and  I  shall  be 
whiter  than  snow  ;"  Ps.  51:7. 

"I  have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain  and 
washed  (rahatz)  my  hands  in  innocency;" 
Ps.  73:  13. 

"  Wash  (rahatz)  ye ;  make  you  clean ; 
put  away  the  evil ;"  Is.  1  :  16. 

•'  When  the  Lord  shall  have  washed  away 
(rahatz)  the  filth  of  the  daughters  of  Zion, 
and  shall  have  purged  the  blood  of  Jerusa- 
lem from  the  midst  thereof  by  the  spirit  of 
judgment  and  burning  ;"  Is.  4  :  4. 

"  O  Jerusalem,  wash  (rahatz)  thine  heart 
from  wickedness,  that  thou  mayest  be  saved!" 
Jer.  4:  14. 

"For  though  thou  wash  (rahatz)  thee  with 
nitre,  and  take  thee  much  soap,  yet  thine 
iniquity  is  marked  before  me,  saith  the 
Lord  ;"  Jer.  2  :  22. 

And  if  any  one  is  not  satisfied  with  these 
quotations,  let  him  take  a  Hebrew  Concord- 
ance and  trace  this  word  through  the  whole 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  will  find  that 
it  is   used  over  and  over  to  denote  the  wash- 


132 

ing  of  any  thing, — of  the  feet,  hands,  face, 
body  and  mind, — and  that  without  the  re- 
motest allusion  to  the  mode  in  which  it  was 
to  be  done.  It  is  a  word  which  has  in  itself 
no  reference  to  mode.  It  contemplates  only 
an  effect  to  be  reached  by  the  use  of  a  fluid, 
without  any  regard  to  the  manner  of  that 
use,  whether  by  friction,  pouring,  sprinkling, 
soaking  or  plunging. 

We  wish  it  therefore  to  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood and  thoroughly  impressed  upon  the 
mind,  that  this  word  rahalz,  the  me&ning  of 
which  is  simply  to  wash  or  cleanse,  no  mat- 
ter in  what  mode,  is  the  word  used  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  all  those  passages  of  the 
Mosaic  law  where  lathing  and  washing  are 
enjoined,  and  upon  which  Dr.  Fuller  relies 
so  confidently  as  indicating  immersion  and 
nothing  else.  We  insist  that  they  were  no 
more  immersions  ihan  they  were  pourings, 
because  the  word  which  designates  them 
means  as  much  to  pour  upon  as  to  immerse, 
and  is  as  completely  fulfilled  by  the  one  as 
by  the  other. 

Such  then  is  the  exact  state  of  the  case, 


133 

with  regard  to  those  Levitical  lustrations  in 
which  bathing  is  spoken  of. 

But  in  addition  to  this  argument  from  the 
word  rahalz,  we  remark  further,  that  under 
all  those  circumstances  upon  which  Dr.  Ful- 
ler dwells  as  establishing  that  these  bathings 
were  performed  by  immersion,  we  have  pos- 
itive proof  that  they  were  not  performed  by 
immersion.  Take  the  case  of  the  young 
man  spoken  of  in  Tobit,  t>  :  2.  He  was  out 
upon  a  journey  ;  he  had  encamped  by  the 
river-side  ;  and  katebe,  he  went  down  to  wash 
himself.  This  word  katebe,  he  went  doicn,  is 
precisely  the  same,  and  used  here  under 
precisely  the  same  circumstances,  as  in  the 
cases  of  Naaman,  and  Philip  and  the  Eu- 
nuch, where  Dr.  Fuller  lays  so  much  stress 
upon  it.  It  is  a  word  in  which  he  finds  a 
world  of  force  and  argument,  when  spoken 
with  reference  to  an  approach  towards  the 
water.  Naaman  katebe,  went  down,  and 
washed  in  Jordan.  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
katebesan,  went  down,  into  the  water.  And 
this  is  to  prove  to  us  that  they  were  im- 
mersed. Well,  just  so  this  young  traveler 
12* 


134 

katebe,  went  down,  to  wash  in  the  Tigris. 
Did  he  immerse  himself?  Was  the  sub- 
mersion of  his  body  the  mode  in  which  his 
ablution  was  performed?  Upon  Dr.  Ful- 
ler's argument  we  would  say,  most  unques- 
tionably, yes.  But  let  us  not  be  so  hasty 
and  confident  in  our  conclusions.  The  re- 
cord says,  katebe  perikltjsasthai,  he  went 
down  and  washed  himself  all  around;  just  as 
a  man  would  stancf  in  a  stream  and  throw 
the  water  up  on  all  sides  of  his  body,  and 
thoroughly  rub  himself  clean. 

Here  then  is  a  case  to  explain  what  the 
Jews  understood  by  those  injunctions  of  the 
law  providing  that  persons  should  "  wash 
their  flesh,"  or  "  bathe  themselves  in  water;" 
a  case  where  the  circumstances  were  such 
that  if  immersion  had  been  contemplated, 
immersion  certainly  would  have  been  per- 
formed ;  a  case  which  at  once  breaks  the 
force  of  Dr.  Fuller's  argument  on  the  word 
katebe  and  completely  annihilates  what  he 
has  built  upon  the  word  bathe.  We  care 
not  whether  the  story  be  true  or  false,  Tobit 
is  not  an  inspired   book,  but  its  historical  de- 


135 

tails  may  still  be  true.  Whether  it  be  fact 
or  fiction,  it  is  equally  in  point  to  illustrate 
the  ideas,  the  manners  and  the  customs  of 
the  age  in  which  it  was  written,  and  is  of 
more  value  for  such  a  purpose  than  the  say- 
ings of  a  thousand  Rabbies  of  comparatively 
modern  times. 

And  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  room 
for  doubt  upon  the  meaning  of  perildusasthai, 
(from  perikluzo,)  we  adduce  the  following 
instances : 

Aristotle  applies  it  to  the  washing  of  child- 
ren— to  paidion  hudati  perikluzein,  u  to  wash 
the  child  all  around  with  water." 

It  is  used  by  Euripides  to  denote  the  wash- 
ing of  the  body  with  water  from  the  sea, 
where  he  applies  nipto  to  the  same  opera- 
tion ;  nipto,  according  to  Dr.  Fuller's  own 
authority  on  page  21,  denoting  hand-washing, 
and  not  a  total  immersion. 

In  Lucian,  V.  H.,  1,  31,  it  is  applied  to 
an  object  wet  or  sprinkled  on  all  sides  icith 
spray  by  rapid  motion  in  water. 

Plutarch  uses  kluzo  to  denote  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  system  from   bile  by  the  use  of 


136 

purgative  medicines;  and  also  with  the  pre- 
position apo,  (from,)  to  express  the  washing 
off  of  blood  from  armor  that  had  been  used 
in  battle. 

Pollux  gives  it  as  the  synonym  of  plu- 
nien,  kruptein  and  kathairein,  and  their  com- 
pounds with  dia,  apo  and  ek.  All  of  which. 
is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion. 

And  Stevens,  Scapula,  Ernesti,  Hedricus, 
Passow,  Donegan,  and  as  far  as  we  know, 
all  the  lexicographers  give  perikluzo  as  the 
washing  around  the  person  or  thing  which 
is  the  subject,  so  as  to  effect  the  most  tho- 
rough cleansing. 

This  young  man  then,  even  when  he  was 
at  the  river  side — after  (katebe)  he  ivent  dozen 
as  Naaman  and  the  Eunuch  (katebe)  went 
down,  and  that  for  the  express  purpose  of 
purifying  himself — when  every  thing  that 
Dr.  Fuller  relies  on  to  prove  an  immersion 
was  there — did  not  immerse  himself,  but  (pe* 
riklusasthai)  went  to  work  with  his  hands  to 
cleanse  himself  thoroughly  by  ivashing  him- 
self all  around. 


137 

So  much  for  those  Levitical  purifications 
in  which  washing  and  bathing\\e  concerned. 
But  besides  those  there  were  others,  in  which 
the  mode  is  particularly  designated.  It  also 
belongs  to  our  purpose  to  say  a  word  or  two 
about  these. 

And  foremost,  and  above  all,  stands  the 
great  catharism*  or  expiation,  of  which  we 
have  an  account  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of 
Exodus,  and  which  has  been  kept  as  an  an- 
nual observance  by  the  children  of  Israel  for 
the  last  three  thousand  years.  Ambrose,  as 
we  have  seen,  calls  it  a  baptism.  It  was  a 
holy  ordinance  of  expiation,  cleansing  from 
sin  and  exempting  from  death,  as  it  pointed 
to  the  great  spiritual  purgation  effected  by 
the  blood-shedding  of  that  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  It  was 
ordained  as  a  statute  for  ever  among  the 
generations  of  Israel.  It  pointed  back  to 
their  redemption  from  Egypt  and  its  destruc- 
tion, and  forward  to  that  still  more  glorious 
expiation  effected  by  Jesus  on  the  cross.  It 
was  among  all  the  Jewish  rites  by  eminence 

*From  Kaiharizo,  to  purify,  to  purge,  to  cleanse  from  guilt, 
to  expiate. 


138 

a  catharism,  a  cleansing,  a  covering  up  and 
washing  away  of  sin.  A  more  striking  case 
of  absolution  is  not  contained  in  the  ancient 
Scriptures.  How  then  was  it  to  be  per- 
formed ?  Will  any  one  pretend  to  say  that 
there  was  any  bathing,  washing  or  immer- 
sion about  it  ?  A  spotless  lamb  was  to  be 
slain,  and  its  blood  was  to  be  struck  or 
sprinkled  upon  the  lintel  and  side-posts  of 
the  door.  God  saw  those  stains  of  blood  and 
was  satisfied,  and  the  hand  of  destruction 
and  death  was  restrained  as  it  passed. 

One  of  the  greatest  uncleannesses  amoncr 
the  Jews  was  the  dreadful  disease  of  lepro- 
sy. God  also  gave  them  special  laws  to  be 
observed  in  purifying  themselves  from  it. 
This  constituted  one  of  their  most  solemn 
purifications.  And  so  far  as  the  official  and 
social  act  of  this  purification,  as  performed 
by  an  administrator,  was  concerned,  it  was 
done  solely  by  sprinkling  upon  the  subject 
the  blood  of  a  turtle-dove  or  pigeon.  See 
Lev.  14. 

Another  uncieanness  under  the  Mosaic 
law  was  contact  with  the  dead.     The  mode 


139 

of  its  purgation  is  also  clearly  given.  "  They 
shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of 
purification  for  sin,  and  running  water  shall 
be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel ;  and  a  clean  person 
shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  water, 
and  sprinkle  it  upon  him  that  touched  a  bone, 
or  one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave ;" 
Num.  19  :  17,  18. 

Another  of  the  Levitical  purifications  was 
that  at  the  ordination  and  induction  of  the 
Levites  to  the  priests'  office.  In  Numbers 
8:  3,  7,  the  mode  of  doing  it  is  explicitly 
given.  "  Take  the  Levites  and  cleanse 
them.  And  thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to 
cleanse  them  :  Sprinkle  water  of  purifying 
upon  them."  Cyprian,  in  his  69th  epistle, 
also  adduces  this  very  passage  in  proof  of 
what  is  the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism.  Ox. 
ford,  1844,  p.  228. 

As  to  the  other  and  more  familiar  lustra- 
tions of  the  Jews,  a  correct  idea  of  the  mode 
of  their  performance  may  be  obtained  from 
what  is  said  in  John,  2  :  6,  in  the  account  of 
the  miracle  at  the  marriage  in  Cana.  "  And 
there  were  set  there  six  water  pots  of  stone? 


140 


AFTER  THE  MANNER  OF  THE  PURIFYING  OF  THE 

Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins  apiece." 
Surely,  if  "the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the 
Jews"  was  adequately  provided  for  in  a  few 
water-jars,  the  contents  of  which  could  be 
entirely  drunk  up  by  way  of  a  supplement 
to  a  wedding  feast,  those  purifications  were, 
at  any  rate,  not  performed  by  immersion. 
An  allusion  to  the  mode  of  these  ordinary 
ablutions  is  also  found  in  2  Kings  3:  11, 
where  Elisha  is  characterized  as  he  "  who 
poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah  ;•'  i.  e., 
the  servant  who  assisted  the  prophet  in  his 
purifications. 

We  also  deem  it  worthy  of  remark,  that 
in  that  orient  world  where  customs  never 
change,  we  still  find  some  remains  of  these 
ceremonial  purifications  and  of  the  manner 
in  which  they  were  performed.  The  Mus- 
sulman, seated  on  his  sofa's  edge,  has  a  ves- 
sel placed  before  him  on  a  large  red  cloth. 
A  servant  on  the  right  pours  out  the  water 
for  his  master's  use,  and  another  on  the  left 
stands  ready  with  the  drying  towel.  The 
devotee   begins  the  service  by  baring    his 


141 

arms  to  the  elbows.  He  applies  the  water  to 
his  hands,  mouth,  nostrils  and  forehead,  re- 
peating his  prayers.  He  then  rises  up  under 
the  belief  that  he  is  pure.  May  not  this  also 
throw  light  upon  "  the  manner  of  the  purify- 
ing of  the  Jews"  from  whom  Mahomet  and 
his  people  borrowed  so  many  of  their  sacred 
ceremonies? 

Such  then  were  the  catliarisms  and  lustra- 
tions prescribed  in  the  Levitical  code  and 
performed  by  the  Jews  in  the  Saviour's  time. 
If  there  were  any  others,  performed  in  any 
way  different  from  those  which  we  have 
named,  we  should  like  to  have  them  pointed 
out  to  us,  not  from  Maimonides,  who  lived 
but  650  years  ago,  or  from  Vatablus,  who 
may  still  be  giving  Hebrew  lessons  to  the 
students  of  Paris,  but  from  the  laws  of  Moses 
or  from  authentic  records  written  by  men 
cotemporaneous  with  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
We  do  not  pretend  to  deny  indeed  that  many 
of  these  Levitical  ablutions,  when  every  thing 
else  was  convenient  and  favorable,  were  per- 
haps performed  by  immersion.  This  may 
have  been,  and  thus  we  would  account  for 
13 


142 

the  sayings  of  those  men  which  Dr.  Fuller 
has  given  in  his  book.  But  we  do  most 
positively  deny  that  a  total  immersion  of  the 
body  was  an  essential  part  of  any  of  them, 
whilst  many  of  them  were  by  express  in* 
junction  of  God  to  be  performed  by  sj)r ink- 
ling alone. 

We  have  already  detained  the  reader 
longer  upon  this  point  than  we  designed  ; 
but  the  great  importance  of  it  in  determining 
the  New  Testament  use  of  baptizo,  and  its 
derivative  baptismos,  will  readily  be  seen. 
It  is  with  reference  to  these  rites  that  these 
words  are  used.  The  nature  of  these  rites 
must  therefore  determine  the  meaning  of 
these  words.  And  what  shall  be  said  of 
Dr.  Fuller's  theory  that  "  Baptizo  denotes  a 
total  immersion  and  has  no  other  meaning," 
when  we  make  it  appear  that  Paul,  by  in- 
spiration  of  God,  sums  up  all  these  ancient 
catharisms  and  lustrations  as  so  many  differ- 
ent baptisms  ? 

Let  the  reader  turn  then  to  the  ninth  chap- 
ter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  sa. 
creJ  writer  there  sets  out  to  give  an  account 


143 

of  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic 
law.  He  is  talking  of  these  rites  and  cere- 
monies, not  as  they  apply  to  cups  and  pots 
and  other  inanimate  things,  but  as  they  ap- 
plied to  the  persons  of  the  worshipers  and  of 
their  efficacy  to  "  make  perfect  as  pertaining 
to  the  conscience."  He  mentions  expressly 
the  legal  abstinences  and  offerings,  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  expiation  by  the 
priest  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  an 
heifer  upon  the  unclean.  And  in  verse  10 
he  takes  them  all  up  in  one  mental  grasp 
and  finds  them  all  comprehended,  monon 
epi  bromasi,  kai  pomasi,  kai  diaphorois  bap- 
tismois,  that  is  to  say,  "  only  in  meats,  and 
drinks,  and  divers  baptisms." 

Here  we  have  it,  plain,  unequivocal,  star- 
ing every  man  full  in  the  face,  that  with 
the  exception  of  distinctions  in  meats  and 
drinks,  the  whole  round  of  the  Levitical 
purifications,  from  the  sprinkling  of  blood 
by  the  high  priest  in  the  holy  of  holies  to  the 
sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer 
on  the  bodies  of  the  unclean,  "  stood  only 
i/i,"  and  by  inspiration  of  the  great  God  him- 


144 

self   are   called   baptisms — diaphorois   bap- 
tismois. 

What  can  be  clearer  than  this  ?  What 
more  conclusive?  Is  it  not  demonstration 
itself? 


145 


CHAPTER   X. 

Baptisms  under  the  law  diverse — Baptisms 
before  eating  not  immersions — Baptism  of 
tables  or  couches —  The  proper  words  for 
simple  immersion  never  used  with  reference 
to  baptism. 

We  have  now  shown  that  the  purifications 
and  expiations  enjoined  in  the  Jewish  law 
were  not  immersions,  but  either  sprinklings 
or  simple  washings,  ordinarily  performed 
under  circumstances  where  immersion  was 
quite  out  of  the  question.  We  have  also 
seen  that  the  inspired  writer  in  Hebrews 
sums  up  all  these  Levitical  purifications  in 
the  one  word,  baptisms.  We  can  conceive 
of  no  stronger  proof  to  show  that  this  word 
does  not  and  cannot  always  mean  im- 
merse and  nothing  else  The  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  on  the  doors 
certainly  was  not  an  immersion  ;  neither  was 
the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer 
on  the  unclean  an  immersion.  The  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  of  a  young  pigeon  upon  the 
13* 


146 

recovering  leper  was  not  an  immersion. 
The  cleansing  of  the  Levites,  by  sprinkling 
"  water  of  purifying  upon  them,"  was  not  an 
immersion.  Elisha's  pouring  of  water  on 
the  hands  of  Elijah  was  not  an  immersion. 
"The  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews," 
as  indicated  by  the  "  six  water-pots  of  stone," 
in  which  the  Saviour's  first  miracle  was 
wrought,  was  not  by  immersion.  And  even 
those  more  thorough  washings  of  the  flesh 
and  bathings,  all  of  which  are  denoted  by 
the  word  rahatz,  were  not  necessarily  im- 
mersions, any  more  than  hand-washings. 
And  yet  inspired  authority  calls  them  all 
baptisms. 

Besides,  the  very  epithet  which  the  apos- 
tle uses  to  describe  these  baptisms  shows 
that  he  did  not  mean  immersions.  He  de- 
nominates them  diaphorois — different,  diverse, 
distinguishable  the  one  from  the  other.  An 
immersion  is  an  immersion  ;  and  one  immer- 
sion for  purification  is  just  like  all  other  im- 
mersions for  purification.  Such  immersions 
were  not  diverse  or  various,  either  in  act,  in 
circumstances  or  in  end.     One  is  a  perfect 


147 

fac  simile  of  the  other.  There  is  no  diver- 
sity about  them.  But  the  baptisms  of  which 
the  apostle  is  speaking  he  characterizes  ex- 
pressly as  diaphorois  baptismois,  divers  bap- 
tisms. If  he  meant  divers  immersions,  they 
that  so  understand  him  are  bound  to  show 
the  diversity.  They  have  never  done  it; 
and  taking  the  word  in  that  sense,  they  never 
can  do  it.  But,  taking  baptisms  here  in  the 
wider  and  more  natural  sense  of  kalharizo, 
to  purify  and  expiate,  the  diversity  spoken 
of  is  at  once  obvious.  Some  were  performed 
by  the  use  of  blood,  some  by  the  use  of  ashes 
and  others  by  the  use  of  water.  In  some 
the  performance  was  by  sprinkling,  in  some 
by  hand-washing,  in  others  by  pouring  water 
on  the  hands,  and  perchance  in  a  few  cases 
by  immersion.  This  forms  the  variety.  And 
still  they  were  all  baptisms.  The  sprink- 
lings with  ashes  were  baptisms,  expressly  so 
called  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who  lived 
within  a  few  hundred  years  of  the  apostles; 
and  the  sprinklings  with  blood  were  baptisms, 
so  more  than  once  declared  by  Ambrose, 
who  lived   still   nearer  to  the  apostolic  age  ; 


148 

and  the  various  lustrations,  including  the 
washing  of  hands  and  other  water  applica- 
tions, were  baptisms,  so  pronounced  by  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  who  lived  within  one 
hundred  years  of  the  death  of  St.  John;  and 
all  of  them  together  were  baptisms,  so  de- 
clared by  authority  which  could  not  err,  even 
by  the  inspired  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  Is  it  not  as  plain  then  as  lan- 
guage can  make  it,  that  they  were  baptisms, 
not  because  they  were  immersions,  for  they 
were  not  immersions,  but  baptisms  in  the 
only  true  religious  sense  of  the  word,  be- 
cause they  were  purifications  ? 

In  Mark  7 :  4,  we  have  another  instance 
of  the  use  of  baplizo,  in  which  we  must  as- 
sign to  it  this  same  signification.  "  And 
when  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  wash  (baptisontai)  they  eat  not.  And 
many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  (baptismous) 
of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and 
tables." 

Dr.  Fuller's  position  is,  that  "  an  entire 
immersion  belongs  to  the  nature  of  baptism  •" 


149 

that  "  baptizo  contains  the  idea  of  a  complete 
immersion  under  water;"  that  it  "always 
denotes  a  total  immersion ;"  pp.  19,  23.  Of 
course  then,  if  his  position  is  true,  it  must 
hold  good  in  this  case ;  and  when  it  is  said 
that  the  Pharisees  never  eat  after  returning 
from  the  market  until  they  have  baptized 
themselves,  it  must  mean  that  they  totally 
immersed  themselves.  Did  they  then  totally 
immerse  themselves  ?  He  quotes  fourteen 
authorities  on  this  point ;  quite  a  formidable 
array  surely.  But  two  of  these  very  author- 
ities, in  the  very  passages  quoted,  speak  only 
of  washings,  without  saying  one  word  about 
the  mode  in  which  they  were  to  be  done ; 
and  seven  more  of  these  same  authorities, 
Campbell,  Buxtorf,  Wetstein,  Rosenmiiller, 
Kuinol,  Spencer  and  Lightfoot,  say  most  ex- 
plicitly that  these  Pharisaic  purifications 
after  return  from  market,  were  only  wash- 
ings of  the  hands !  So  that  seven  out  of 
twelve  of  his  own  witnesses,  and  those  the 
most  reliable,  positively  declare  that  these 
Pharisaic  baptisms  were  not  total  immersions, 
but  hand-washings. 


150 

Nor  will  it  meet  the  case  for  Dr.  Fuller 
to  say  or  to  prove  that  these  hand-washings 
were  immersions  of  the  hands.  The  bap- 
tisms are  predicated  of  "  the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews"  not  of  the  hands  of  the  Phari- 
sees and  Jews.  "  And  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  wash  (baptisontai) 
they  eat  not."  The  baptism  is  the  baptism 
of  the  same  thai  went  to  market,  that  re- 
turned from  market  and  that  ate.  The  same 
nominative  stands  for  all  these  verbs.  Cer- 
tainly it  was  not  the  hands  alone  that  went  to 
market,  nor  the  hands  alone  that  returned 
from  market,  nor  the  hands  alone  that  ate. 
"The  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews"  constitute 
the  subject  of  whom  these  things  are  alleged  ; 
and  Dr.  Fuller  can  no  more  exempt  all  but 
hands  from  the  force  of  baptisontai  than  he 
can  exempt  all  but  hands  from  the  eating  and 
returning  from  market.  It  was  the  Phari- 
sees that  ate,  and  the  Pharisees  that  returned 
from  market,  and  it  was  the  Pharisees  that 
baptized  themselves.  And  so,  if  that  baptism 
was  performed  by  a  simple  washing  of  the 
hands,  no  matter  whether  they  were  steeped 


151 

in  water,  or  whether  water  was  poured,  or 
sprinkled,  or  rubbed  upon  them,  it  was  not  a 
total  immersion  ;  and  baptizo  here  must  take 
the  sense  of  purify,  and  not  that  of  entire 
immersion  under  water. 

But  what  is  to  be  done  with  Dr.  Fuller's 
five  remaining  authorities,  in  which  it  is  said 
that  the  Pharisees  totally  immersed  them- 
selves  before  eating,  afler  having  been  at 
the  market  ?  Whether  he  has  quoted  them 
fairly  we  have  not  attempted  to  ascertain. 
All  we  have  to  say  on  that  point  is,  that  a 
man  who  can  take  the  liberties  with  the 
Book  of  God — a  book  in  every  one's  hand — 
which  we  have  proven  upon  Dr.  Fuller,  is 
not  very  much  to  be  relied  on  when  he  comes 
to  give  a  line  or  two  here  and  there  from 
rare  books,  which  the  most  intelligent  men 
seldom  see.  But  we  will  suppose  these  quo- 
tations all  accurate  and  just.  What  do  they 
amount  to?  Two  of  them,  one  from  Mai- 
monides  and  one  from  Vatablus,  say  not  a 
word  about  the  market,  and  may  refer  to  a 
very  different  department  of  Pharisaic  lus- 
trations from  that  alluded  to  in  the  text.     Put 


152 

we  pass  this  also,  and  permit  them  all  to 
stand  as  going  directly  to  the  point.  And 
yet  we  can  satisfactorily  meet  them  all  with- 
out traveling  out  of  Dr.  Fuller's  own  book. 
Seven  of  his  own  authorities,  and  the  very 
best  out  of  the  twelve  that  he  has  quoted  in 
this  place,  flatly  contradict,  confound  and 
completely  negative  the  other  five,  and  in 
words  as  positive  as  can  be  chosen,  declare 
that  these  Pharisaic  purifications  after  at- 
tending market  were  not  total  immersions,  but 
hand-  iu as  kings.  Are  not  seven  an  adequate 
offset  to  Jive  ?  Are  not  Buxtorf,  Wetstein, 
Rosenmiiller,  Kuinol,  Spencer,  and  Lightfoot 
names  as  great  and  controlling  as  Vatablus, 
Grotius,  Maimonides  and  Macknight?  Ac- 
cording to  one  list  the  baptism  before  us  was 
an  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  a  total  im- 
mersion ;  according  to  the  other  list  it  was  a 
mere  washing  of  the  hands ;  according  to  a 
third  list  it  was  a  simple  washing,  without 
specification  of  mode  ;  and  all  the  lists  are 
Dr.  Fuller's  own  quotations!  Let  him  har- 
monize his  authorities  if  he  can,  and  then 
perhaps  they  may  be  of  some  weight.     If 


153 

these  purifications  from  the  contaminations 
of  the  market-place  were  mere  icashings, 
they  may  have  been  immersions,  or  they 
may  have  been  sprinklings  or  rubbings.  If 
they  were  mere  hand-washings,  they  certain- 
ly were  not  total  immersions ;  and  the  great 
weight  of  his  authorities  goes  to  establish 
that  they  were  mere  hand-washings  and 
nothing  else. 

Now  we  do  not  intend  to  maintain  that 
these  Pharisaic  lustrations  from  the  supposed 
defilement  of  attending  market  were  never 
performed  by  a  general  bathing,  or  even  by 
a  total  immersion.  The  probability  is,  that 
in  the  warm  season,  and  when  circumstances 
made  it  convenient,  they  did  at  times  per- 
form this  particular  purification  in  one  or  the 
other  of  these  ways.  No  sensible  man  will 
deny  that  such  instances  may  have  occurred. 
And  this  will  sufficiently  account  for  what 
has  been  said  by  Maimonides,  Grotius  and 
Macknight.  But  we  do  maintain  that  this 
was  not  the  only  nor  the  ordinary  way  of 
performing  this  purification.  The  seven 
authorities  quoted  by  Dr.  Fuller,  which  de- 
14 


154 

clare  that  it  was  done  by  the  mere  washing 
of  the  hands,  is  proof  enough  to  our  purpose. 
But  we  will  not  stop  with  what  they  have 
said.  Our  author  seems  to  think  that  au- 
thorities are  arguments,  and  therefore  we 
will  not  withhold  them. 

The  Commentator  Henry  remarks  upon 
the  customs  of  the  Jews  as  related  to  this 
passage,  *•'  They  particularly  washed  before 
they  ate  bread.  They  took  special  care, 
when  they  came  from  the  markets,  to  wash 
their  hands.  The  rule  of  the  Rabbins  was, 
that  if  they  washed  their  hands  well  in  the 
morning,  it  would  serve  for  all  day,  provided 
they  kept  alone  ;  but  if  they  went  into  com- 
pany, they  must  not  eat  or  pray  till  they  had 
washed  their  hands." 

Scott  says,  "  It  seems  undeniable,  that  by 
the  words  baptize  and  baptisms  a  partial  ap- 
plication of  water  was  intended  in  this  as  in 
several  other  places." 

Dr.  SchafF,  in  his  History  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,  p.  569,  says,  "  In  support  of  this, 
(that  baptizo  has  the  general  sense,  to  wash, 
to  cleanse,)  a  confident  appeal  can  assuredly 


155 

be  made  to  several  passages,  viz  :  Luke  11 : 
3S,  with  Mark  7  :  2,  4,  where  baplizien  is 
used  of  the  toashing  of  hands  before  eating. 
Mark  has  for  this,  v.  3,  niptein,  which  in  the 
East  was  performed  by  pouring."  The  same 
author  says  that  in  Mark  7  :  4,  8,  Heb.  9 : 
10,  "  Baptismoi  must  be  taken  to  include  all 
sorts  of  religious  purifications  among  the  Jews, 
including  sprinkling." 

Bloomfield  says  that  baptize  here  does 
not  denote  an  immersion. 

In  Morris  and  Smith's  Expositions  of  the 
Gospels  we  have  this  note  upon  this  passage, 
"  They  (the  Jews)  did  not  immerse  them- 
selves in  water,  but  used  a  small  quantity, 
which  was  applied  to  the  hand  and  wrist,  or, 
at  most,  to  the  arm  as  far  as  the  elbow.  It 
cannot  be  proved  that  the  Jeics  washed  the 
whole  body  when  they  returned  from  market. 
There  could  have  been  no  necessity  for  it, 
even  in  their  opinion ;  the  most  they  did  was 
to  wash  those  parts  which  were  exposed  to 
contamination." 

Albert  Barnes  says,  "  Baptize  in  this  place 
does  not  mean  to  immerse  the  whole  body. 


156 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Jews  immersed 
their  whole  bodies  every  time  they  came 
from  the  market.  It  is  probable  they  wash- 
ed as  a  mere  ceremony,  and  often  doubtless 
with  the  use  of  a  very  small  quantity  of 
water." 

And  in  the  notes  to  the  Cottage  Bible  it  is 
said  that  some  of  the  wealthier,  who  had  the 
leisure  and  all  the  necessary  conveniences, 
may  have  immersed  themselves  ;  but  that 
the  generality  of  the  Jews  did  no  more  than 
wash  their  hands. 

Dr.  Fuller  may  say  these  are  all  modern 
authorities.  Be  it  so ;  we  will  give  him 
some  more  ancient.  The  oldest  that  he  has 
given  carries  us  back  to  the  close  of  the 
twelfth  century.  Theophylaet  lived  more 
than  a  hundred  years  earlier,  and  is  pro- 
nounced by  Mosheim  and  Neander  the  most 
distinguished  exegetical  writer  of  his  age ; 
and  Theophylaet  says  that  these  Jewish  pu- 
rifications before  eating  were  performed  by 
mere  hand-washings.  He  designates  them 
by  the  word  niptesthai,  a  word  which,  ac- 
cording to  Beza,  (as  quoted  by  Dr.  Fuller 
himself,)  has  respect  only  to  the  hands. 


157 

But  we  go  back  six  hundred  years  further 
still.  We  point  Dr.  Fuller  to  the  oldest  but 
one,  if  not  the  very  oldest  existing  copy  of 
the  Bible  itself — to  a  manuscript  of  the  New 
Testament,  which,  for  its  internal  excellence 
and  nearest  approach  to  the  older  Greek 
copies,  was  preferred  by  Michaelis  to  all 
others— to  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  We  point 
him  also  to  eight  other  ancient  copies,  as 
also  to  Euthemius,  the  Isaurian  ;  all  of  which 
have  rantisontai  in  the  place  of  baptisontai : 
li  When  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  purify  themselves  by  sprinkling,  they 
eat  not."  And  surely,  if  the  old  Greek 
transcribers  thirteen  hundred  years  ago  con- 
sidered the  word  baptism  in  this  passage  as 
the  proper  equivalent  of  sprinkling,  it  ought 
to  settle  the  case.  If  Dr.  Fuller  really  en- 
tertains the  reverence  for  authority  which  he 
professes,  let  him  bow  before  it  and  confess 
that  baptizo  does  not  here  mean  a  total  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else. 

But  "the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews"  not 
only  baptized  or  purified  themselves ;  they 
had  also  received  to  hold  many  like  things, 
14* 


158 

such  as  "the  baptizing  or  purifying  (baptis- 
mous)  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels  and 
of  tables."  As  to  these  cups,  pots  and  braz- 
en vessels,  they  may  have  been  immersed  or 
not,  as  circumstances  rendered  convenient. 
We  suppose  they  ordinarily  were  immersed, 
because  this  was  the  most  convenient  and 
natural  mode  of  purifying  them.  Anasta- 
sius,  however,  gives  us  instances  in  which 
such  vessels  were  purified  simply  by  pour- 
ing water  into  them  ;  and  calls  such  a  puri- 
fication Baptism.  (Biblo.  Patrum,  vol.  5, 
p.  958.)  But  what  shall  be  said  of  the  "ta- 
lles  V9  Dr.  Fuller  tells  us  not  to  think  of 
"our  massive  mahogany  furniture,"  and 
wishes  to  make  his  readers  believe  that 
nothing  more  is  meant  than  "  a  round  piece 
of  leather  !"  p.  60.  Unfortunately  for  him 
his  own  favorite  authority,  quoted  in  the  very 
next  paragraph,  completely  spoils  his  beau- 
tiful fabrication.  Maimonides  says,  "  Every 
vessel  of  wood,  which  is  made  for  the  use  of 
man,  as  a  table,  receives  defilement."  After 
all,  it  seems  that  a  Jewish  "table"  was  made 
'; of  wood"  and   that  it  was  a  very  different 


159 

thing  from  "a  round  piece  of  leather,  spread 
upon  the  floor,  upon  which  is  placed  a  sort 
of  stool,  supporting  nothing  but  a  platter!" 
How  "  massive"  Dr.  Fuller's  "mahogany  fur- 
niture" may  be,  we  know  not.  He  claims 
to  be  something  out  of  the  ordinary  line  of 
Baptists,  and  advocates  a  system  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  held  by  the  great  majority 
of  Christians;  and  it  may  be  that  his  "ma- 
hogany furniture  "  is  also  something  out  of 
the  common  order  of  things.  But  we  do 
know,  that  especially  among  the  wealthier 
Pharisees — the  very  parties  concerned  in  the 
passage  before  us — the  "tables"  in  use  were 
cumbersome  wooden  structures,  from  eight  to 
twenty  feet  in  length,  about  four  feet  wide 
and  about  three  or  four  feet  high.  (See 
Watson's  Dictionary,  Art.  Banquet ;  Home's 
Introduction,  vol.  2,  part  4,  chap.  1,  sec.  4; 
and  Comprehensive  Commentary  on  John, 
13:  23,  25.)  And  whether  such  articles 
were  ordinarily  submerged  in  water  after 
every  meal,  we  ask  the  reflecting  to  judge. 
But  the  word  klinon,  here  rendered  tables, 
does  not  properly  mean  the  tables  on  which 


160 

food  was  placed,  but  the  couches,  sofas  and 
cushions  on  which  the  quests  reclined  whilst 
eating.  Dr.  Fuller  becomes  very  impatient 
under  this  fact  and  says,  "  J  don't  care  what 
it  means.  The  Bible  says  they  immersed  tlie 
articles,  and  this  is  enough;"  p.  61.  Take 
it  easy,  Doctor  ;  the  Bible  says  no  such  thing. 
That  awkward  and  equivocal  Latin  word 
immerse  is  not  in  the  Bible,  and  never  will 
be  there  until  Baptists  are  allowed  to  carry 
into  effect  that  cherished  wish  of  their  hearts, 
to  wit,  the  adjustment  of  the  Word  of  God  to 
their  miserable  sectarian  system.  The  word 
klinon  means  couches  or  beds,  and  the  Bible 
says  that  the  Jews  baptized  them;  and  we 
wish  the  reader  to  inquire  into  the  character 
of  these  articles,  in  order  to  make  up  his 
mind  as  to  whether  that  baptism  was  a  total 
immersion.  What  were  these  couches? 
The  learned  Home  thus  refers  to  them : 
"  The  more  opulent  had  (as  those  in  the  East 
still  have)  fine  carpets,  couches,  or  divans, 
and  sofas,  on  which  they  sat,  lay  and  slept. 
In  later  times  their  couches  were  splendid, 
and  the  frames  inlaid  with  ivorv,  and  the 


161 
coverlids  rich  and  perfumed.     On  these  so- 

I  : 

(the  very  period  to  which  th. 
they  univr  iking  then 

meals,  resting 

towards  the  table:"  (Int.,  v        -         154.) 
a  thus  describes    the.-  i 

or  couc 
each  .  i  2h  of  th  e 

cUnium.     At  the  ec  : 

r  the  convenience  of  n  . 

to  it.  "esses 

and  supported  on  frames  of  wood,  often  high- 
ly ornamented ;  the      - 

:  lording  to  the  quaL 
T  toL  Lie.  Art. 
Banquet.)     Even   Mr.   Carson,  one  of  Dr. 
Fuller's  grades,   fire  rdes  that 

were  loted  by  J53  Upon 

these    : 
was   the    custom  of  the  Je~  :o  be 

And   can  any  secern:. 
suppose  that  such  M  splendid 
subjec 
with  men  reclining  on  them  ?    J 


162 

hapllzo  here  signifies  only  to  purify,  and  that 
in  some  mode  less  troublesome  and  less  de- 
structive than  that  of  quite  burying  them  in 
the  water. 

Another  passage  in  which  baptizo  occurs 
is  Luke  11:  38.  "A  certain  Pharisee  be- 
sought Jesus  to  dine  with  him  ;  and  Jesus 
went  in  and  sat  down  to  meat.  And  when 
the  Pharisee  saw  it  he  marveled  that  Jesus 
had  not  first  washed  (ebaptisfhe)  before  din- 
ner." Here  we  have  the  same  sort  of  puri- 
fication spoken  of  in  the  preceding  passage. 
And  if  the  Jewish  lustrations  were  ordinarily 
performed  by  simply  washing  their  hands, 
even  when  returning  from  the  market,  it 
certainly  is  not  to  be  supposed  in  this  case 
that  Christ  was  expected  to  immerse  himself. 
Kuinol  says  that  the  existence  of  any  such 
custom  as  that  of  regular  immersion  before 
all  meals  cannot  be  proved.  Henry,  Burk- 
itt  and  Olshausen  understand  mere  hand- 
washing to  be  indicated.  The  translators 
have  not  improperly  rendered  it  wash.  It 
denotes  no  more  than  a  common  ceremonial 
purification,  which  was  sufficiently  accom- 
plished by  a  simple  wetting  of  the  hands. 


163 

We  would  also  ask  Dr.  Fuller  to  tell  us 
why  the  words  kaiapontizo,  hatadumi  and 
katalaptizo  are  never  used  by  the  sacred 
writers  in  connection  with  the  sacrament  of 
baptism.  The  direct,  certain  and  unequivo- 
cal meaning  of  all  these  words  is  "  a  total 
immersion  and  nothing  else."  They  every 
where  and  always  have  the  very  "  univo- 
cal  meaning"  which  he  wishes  to  fix  upon 
oaptizo.  What  then  is  the  reason  that  the 
inspired  penmen  have  never  used  one  of 
them  with  reference  to  baptism  ?  Is  not  the 
omission  significant  ?  Has  not  this  divine 
particularity,  in  using  only  bapiizo,  a  lesson 
for  us  ?  Does  it  not  teach  us  that  there  is  a 
peculiarity  about  the  meaning  of  this  word 
something  different  from  the  simple  act  of 
immersion  ?     Let  Dr.  Fuller  explain. 

In  the  mean  time  we  ask  the  reader,  in 
view  of  the  facts  and  evidences  which  we 
have  thus  far  submitted,  whether  it  is  possi- 
ble for  a  sane,  honest  man  still  to  say  that 
laptizo  always  denotes  a  total  immersion  and 
has  no  other  meaning  ? 


164 


CHAPTER  XL 

Our  doctrine  respecting  Baptize- — Has  a  pe- 
culiar religious  sense — Is  used  interchange- 
ably  with  Katharizo — Explained  by  Dikaioo. 
Purifiers  called  Baptizers — The  holy  Ghost; 
John — -  Other  instances —  Testimony  from 
the  Fathers — Inference  from  the  nature  of 
things. 

Ocjr  doctrine  is,  that  baptizo,  with  its  de- 
rivatives, in  the  vocabulary  of  the  New 
Testament,  is  a  religious  ivord,  and  always 
used  in  the  same  distinct  religious  sense.  If 
it  meant  to  immerse  and  nothing  else,  it 
would  unquestionably  have  been  some  where 
interchanged  with  other  Greek  words  which 
have  this  specific  signification.  It  is  never 
so  interchanged.  Dr.  Fuller  agrees  that 
"the  Holy  Spirit  always,  in  speaking  of  the 
ordinance  (of  baptism,)  uses  one  single 
word.  That  word  is  baptizo  ;"  p.  12.  This 
fact  is  very  significant.  It  shows  conclu- 
sively that  this  word  is  not  the  synonym  of 
Jcatapontizo,  katadumi,  katabaptizo,  or    any 


165 

other  word  that  has  the  specific  signification 
of  sinking  under  water,  but  has  a  sense  pe- 
culiarly and  pre-eminently  its  own  ;  not  a 
sense  up  to  the  time  foreign  and  unknown  to 
this  word,  but  one  among  its  well  known 
significations,  now  adopted,  fixed  and  ever 
after  adhered  to  as  the  specific  sense  in  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  employs  it. 

Dr.  Fuller  affects  to  be  filled  with  holy 
jealousy  at  such  a  doctrine.  Though  its 
truth  is  so  distinctly  indicated  by  the  acts  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  does  not  condescend  to 
pay  it  the  commonest  respect.  He  will  not 
call  it  "amusing  absurdity"  and  "  ridiculous 
sophistry;"  the  subject  is  "too  solemn"  for 
that.  It  is  presented  as  something  with 
horns  and  split  hoofs ;  a  black  spirit  from 
the  under- world,  bearing  the  name  of  blas- 
phemy ;  "  an  impiety  ichich  ought  to  fill  a 
pious  mind  icith  horror  /"  p.  32.  So  calm  is 
his  philology,  that  when  arguments  fail  him, 
it  will  even  allow  him  to  raise  the  cry  of, 
Infernal  Apparition!  to  frighten  the  unsus- 
pecting from  the  true  import  of  the  Revela- 
tion of  God.  But  with  all  Dr.  Fuller's  "hue 
15 


166 

and  cry"  about  absurdity,  sophistry  and  hor- 
rible impiety,  we  maintain  that  baptizo  has  a 
religions  sense — a  peculiar,  settled  and  spe- 
cific religious  signification.  To  this  fact  we 
have  the  testimony  of  those  men  who  made 
the  Latin  version  of  the  Bible,  and  the  testi- 
mony of  the  English  translators  of  the  Bible. 
And  what  horrible  impieiists  these  great 
Christian  teachers  must  have  been,  all  to 
agree  that  baplizo  in  the  Saviour's  lips  was 
a  word  so  peculiar  in  its  application  as  not 
to  be  capable  of  an  exact  translation  by  any 
other  verb,  either  in  Latin  or  English.  Even 
Mr.  Carson  himself  admits,  that  immersion 
and  baptism  are  not  synonymous  words,  and 
remarks  that  they  "  are  any  thing  rather  than 
synonymous." — p.  383. 

We  have  just  argued  that  baptizo  was  not 
used  by  the  inspired  writers  to  signify  a  total 
immersion  and  nothing  else,  because  they 
have  never  used  it  interchangeably  with  other 
words  which  have  this  specific  signification. 
Upon  the  same  principle  we  argue,  that  if 
an  instance  can  be  found  in  which  the  sacred 
penmen  use  it  interchangeably  with  any  other 


167 

word,  that  word  must  give  its  true  scriptural, 
religious  sense,  its  proper,  technical,  New 
Testament  signification.  Have  we  any  such 
instance  ?     We  have. 

Let  the  reader  turn  to  John  3  :  22,  and 
read  from  that  on  to  John  4:3.  The  apos- 
tle here  tells  us  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
baptizing  at  Enon,  and  that  Jesus  was  also 
engaged  in  baptizing,  at  least  by  his  disci- 
ples, in  the  same  vicinity.  John  had  been 
baptizing  great  multitudes;  but  it  seems  that 
at  this  time  the  public  attention  was  some- 
what diverted  from  John's  baptism  to  that  of 
the  Saviour.  A  sort  of  jealousy  was  engen. 
dered  in  some  of  John's  disciples  by  this 
turn  in  the  current  of  popular  favor,  and 
they  began  to  speak  of  it.  A  dispute  arose 
about  the  relative  merits  of  John's  baptism 
and  Christ's  baptism.  And  this  dispute  about 
baptism  the  sacred  writer  terms  "a  question 
peri  katharismou," — about  purifying.  Of 
course  it  could  not  have  been  a  question 
about  purification  in  general ;  that  is  alto- 
gether  foreign  to  the  scope  of  the  passage. 
It  was  baptism  that  gave  rise  to  the  dispute ; 


168 

and  baptism  was  the  subject  with  which  the 
disputants,  on  the  one  side  at  least,  went  to 
John  to  complain;  (v.  26.)  It  necessarily 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  subject  of  their 
dispute  was  baptism.  Chrysostom,  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  testify 
expressly,  in  commenting  upon  this  passage, 
that  the  question  concerning  purification  was 
simply  and  only  a  question  concerning  bap- 
tism. Theophylact  says  of  John's  disciples 
and  the  Jews  on  this  occasion,  that  they 
"  disputed  concerning  purification,  that  is 
baptism"  Olshausen  says,  "  The  dispute 
related  to  baptism."  Dr.  Beecher  says, 
"  The  dispute  in  question  was  plainly  a  spe- 
cific dispute  concerning  baptism  as  practiced 
by  Jesus  and  John."  Schleusner,  Wahl, 
Vater,  Rosenmiiller,  De  Wette,  Brelschnei- 
der  and  Kuinol  all  say  that  baptism  was  the 
only  subject  of  the  question.  Grotius,  Beza, 
Whitby,  Doederlin,  Burkitt,  Clarke  and 
Henry  take  the  same  view.  Rosenmiiller, 
Vater,  Kuinol  and  Schleusner  give  baptism 
as  the  proper  translation  of  katharismou  in 
this  passage.     Even   Professor  Ripley  him- 


169 

self,  nay,  all  that  have  ventured  to  comment 
upon  this  place,  so  far  as  we  know,  Mr. 
Carson  alone  excepted,  in  some  way  or  other 
make  kaiharismou  here  mean  baptism.  By 
no  just  laws  of  interpretation  can  it  be  made 
to  mean  any  thing  else.  And  whether  we 
put  baptism  in  the  place  of  the  word  purify- 
ing, or  put  purify  in  the  place  of  baptize,  the 
sense  remains  conspicuously  the  same. 

Here  then  is  a  divine  key  to  unlock  to  us 
the  true  religious  sense  of  baptizo.  By  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Ghost  it  has  its  equiv- 
alent and  synonym  in  katharizo,  which  means 
to  purify.  The  dispute  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks  was  not  a  dispute  about  "  a  total  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else,"  but  a  dispute 
about  purifying.  That  purifying  was  the 
religious  rite  of  baptism,  as  practiced  both 
by  Christ  and  his  fore-runner.  It  follows 
therefore  with  inevitable  certainty,  and  that, 
not  from  heathen  classics  or  modern  Jewish 
paraphrasts,  but  from  the  infallible  word  of 
God  itself,  that  the  true  religious  sense  of 
baptizo  is  religious  purification.  If  this  is 
15* 


170 

"horrible  impiety,"  let  Dr.  Fuller  make  the 
most  of  it. 

Another  word  given  in  the  Scriptures  as 
equivalent  to  baptizo  is  dikaioo,  to  clear,  jus- 
tify, to  declare  innocent,  and  hence  also  to 
purify.  In  Hebrews  9 :  10,  the  writer 
makes  diaphorois  bapiismois — divers  bap- 
tisms— the  exact  equivalent  of  dikaiomasi 
sarkos,  clearings  of  the  flesh.  He  is  speak- 
ing of  the  external  expiations  and  lustrations 
prescribed  in  the  Jewish  law.  He  calls  them 
all  baptisms ;  and  these  outward  baptisms  he 
calls  clearings  or  purifyings  of  the  flesh.  It 
is  true,  in  the  English  Bible,  the  word  "and" 
comes  between  these  two  expressions,  as  if 
the  writer  designed  to  designate  two  distinct 
departments  in  the  legal  services  of  which 
he  is  speaking.  But  Griesbach  altogether 
rejects  this  '-and"  (kai)  as  not  a  genuine 
reading.  Professor  Stuart  takes  the  same 
view,  and  renders  the  passage,  " meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  ivashings  (baptisms) — ordi- 
nances pertaining  to  the  Jlesh.,}  The  Syriac 
version,  according  to  Murdock's  translation 
of  it,  is  very  clear  in  this  view.     After  the 


171 

reference  to  meats  and  drinks  and  baptisms, 
it  has  this  unequivocal  phrase,  "  which  were 
carnal  ordinances?'  In  a  tract  before  us, 
from  a  doctor  of  divinity  in  the  city  of  Bal- 
timore, the  passage  is  rendered,  "  meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  baptisms,  (even)  justifi- 
cations (or  purifications)  of  the  flesh."  And 
it  is  evident  to  all  who  will  examine,  that 
this  must  be  the  true  reading,  because  there 
are  no  justifications  or  purifyings  of  the  flesh 
prescribed  in  all  the  Jewish  law,  which  are 
not  completely  included  "in  meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  baptisms."  Baptismois 
and  dikaiomasi  are  therefore  interchangeable 
terms.  At  least  the  Holy  Ghost  employs  the 
one  to  explain  the  other.  Dikaioma  no  where, 
to  our  knowledge,  means  immersion  or  any 
thing  like  it.  It  means  a  judicial  clearing. 
In  Rom.  2:  26,  5  :  18,  8:4,  and  Rev.  19: 
8,  it  is  rendered  righteousness ;  in  many 
places,  justify;  in  Rom.  6 :  7,  freed.  All 
these  are  also  meanings  of  katharizo.  And 
if  these  words  explain  the  meaning  of  bapti. 
so,  a  religious  purifying  is  certainly  its  sense. 
There  can  be  no  escape  from  this  argument. 


172 

Again,  in  1  Cor.  12:  13,  the  Holy  Ghost 
himself  is  presented  as  a  baptizer.  "For  by 
one  Spirit  ice  are  all  baptized  (ebaptistha- 
men.v)  Is  the  Holy  Spirit  an  immerser  or 
plunger  ?  No  ;  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  sanctifi- 
es a  purifier ;  Ez.  37:28,  Rom.  15:16, 
1  Peter  1:2.  "  The  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  says  Brown,  "  denotes  not  only  the 
miraculous  collation  of  the  influences  of  the 
blessed  Spirit,  whereby  the  New  Testament 
Church  was  solemnly  consecrated  to  the 
service  of  God  ;  but  chiefly  his  gracious  in- 
fluences, which,  like  fire,  purify,  soften  and 
inflame  our  heart  with  love  to  Jesus,  and 
wash  away  our  sin,  and  enable  us  to  join 
ourselves  to  him  and  his  people."  When, 
therefore,  the  fulfilment  of  these  offices  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  recovered  sinner  is 
called  baptism,  are  we  not  bound  to  interpret 
the  word  according  to  the  nature  of  the  of- 
fices and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  If  the 
work  and  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  to  pu- 
rify, and  God  calls  that  purification  baptism, 
is  it  not  a  clear  and  palpable  demonstration, 
that  in  God's  mouth  the  terms  are  converti- 


173 

ble,  and  that  baptizo  in  its  proper  religious 
sense  means  purification  ? 

There  is  also  a  passage  in  the  first  chap- 
ter of  John,  (v.  19,  28,)  which  remains  ex- 
ceedingly obscure  until  we  give  to  baptizo 
its  proper  signification  of  purify.  The  au- 
thorities of  the  Jewish  people  sent  a  deputa- 
tion to  John  the  Baptist,  to  ascertain  from 
him  his  true  official  character  and  position. 
They  asked  whether  he  was  Elijah,  mista- 
king as  they  did  the  true  import  of  the  predic- 
tion in  Malachi  4  :  5,  6.  John  said  he  was 
not.  They  asked  him  whether  he  was  that 
prophet  foretold  by  Moses  in  Deuteronomy, 
18  :  15.  He  answered  again  he  was  not. 
They  then  asked  him,  "  Why  baptizest 
(baptizeis)  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  the 
Christ,  nor  Elijah,  neither  that  prophet  ?" 
What  does  this  mean  ?  What  had  been 
said  by  the  ancient  prophets  concerning 
Christ  and  his  fore-runner,  that  led  the 
Jewish  officials  to  suppose  that  these  predic- 
tions were  verified  in  John's  work  of  baptiz- 
ing f  Had  God's  messenger  been  predicted 
as   an   immerserf     No.     Had   Christ   been 


174 

predicted  as  an  immerser?  No.  In  what 
peculiar  character  then  had  they  been  pre- 
dicted, to  give  rise  to  this  singular  question? 
One  passage  in  Malachi  (3 :  I,  3)  will  solve 
the  whole  difficulty.  In  that  passage  the 
Saviour  is  foretold  as  a  purifier,  likened  to 
"a  refiner's  fire  and  fuller's  soap,"  who 
should  "  sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  sil- 
ver," who  should  "purify  the  sons  of  Levi 
and  purge  them  as  gold  and  silver."  See 
also  Is.  1:25,  4:4;  Zech.  13:9;  Matt. 
3:  10,  12;  and  Lightfoot's  large  collection 
of  Rabbinical  passages  on  this  point.  Ac- 
cording to  these  prophecies  the  Jews  univer- 
sally expected  both  Elijah  and  Christ  in  the 
official  character  of  purifiers.  And  when 
they  put  the  question  to  John,  why  he  bap- 
tized, if  he  was  neither  Christ  nor  Elijah  ? 
they  doubtless  used  the  word  in  the  sense  of 
the  prophecies  which  led  them  to  ask  the 
question,  and  the  nature  of  the  case  requires 
us  to  put  upon  it  the  only  intelligible  sense 
of  purification. 

So  far  then  as  the  peculiar  Christian  sense 
of  baptizo  can  be  condensed  into  one  Eng- 


175 

lish  expression,  it  denotes  a  religions  puri' 

fying- 

Nor  was  this  meaning  unknown  to  this 
word  and  for  the  first  time  assigned  to  it  by 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Mr. 
Carson  himself  admits  that  all  the  lexicog- 
raphers and  commentators  do  assign  to  it 
the  unlimited  sense,  to  wash  or  cleanse. 
Schrevelius,  Dunbar,  Grove,  Parkhurst, 
Scapula,  Stephens,  Passow,  Ernesti,  Schnei- 
der, et  cetera,  all  sustain  the  use  of  it  in  the 
sense  of  purification.  And  we  have  seen 
that  the  almost  exclusive  use  of  it  in  the 
version  of  the  seventy,  which  was  made  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  before  Christ's  time, 
is  as  the  synonym  of  louo,  in  the  sense  of 
religious  purifying. 

But  even  if  baptizo  had  never  been  used 
in  this  sense  previous  to  its  introduction  into 
the  New  Testament,  that  it  is  so  used  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  a  fixed  fact,  which  no  ingenu- 
ity or  eloquence  on  earth  can  unsettle.  We 
have  seen  that  it  is  used  by  the  inspired  John 
as  the  synonym  of  katharizo,  which  means 
only  to  cleanse,  especially  in  a  religious,  le- 


176 

gal  or  ceremonial  sense.  Paul  employs  it 
to  denote  the  work  of  God's  Spirit  in  the 
sinner's  heart,  which  is  a  purification  and 
not  an  immersion.  John  is  asjain  and  a^ain 
called  the  baptizer,  and  was  supposed  to  be 
either  Elias  or  the  Christ  simply  because  he 
cleansed  Israel  by  a  religious  purifying. 
The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
calls  all  the  various  sprinklings,  expiations 
and  lustrations  under  the  Jewish  law,  many 
of  which  certainly  were  not  immersions,  di- 
vers baptisms,  only  because  they  were  puri- 
fications. The  Pharisaic  washing  of  hands 
before  eating,  the  washing  of  pots  and  cups 
and  brazen  vessels,  and  the  sprinkling  of 
beds  and  couches,  are  all  called  baptisms, 
upon  no  other  ground  but  that  they  were 
ceremonial  purifications.  Christ  himself  is 
said  to  have  been  baptized  (with  water  by 
John,  and  with  blood  and  agony  in  Geth- 
semane  and  on  the  cross)  for  the  expressed 
purpose,  and  only  in  this  respect,  that  he 
might  fulfil  all  righteousness,  (Matt.  3  :  15,) 
and  be  perfected  through  sufferings,  (Heb. 
2  :  10,)   and   have  effected  in  himself  the 


177 

great  purgation  through  which  those  who 
are  in  him  are  justified  and  purified  for  ever. 
The  Israelites  are  said  to  have  been  baptized 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  be- 
cause, according  to  Vitringa,  Wolf,  Bengel, 
Rosenmiiller,  Semler,  Schleusner  and  others, 
they  were  thereby  initiated  into  the  religion 
which  Moses  taught,  ransomed  from  their 
degradation  and  bondage  in  Egypt,  absolved 
from  their  old  task-masters,  consecrated  as 
God's  peculiar  people,  purified  from  their 
former  associations  with  the  heathen,  and  by 
a  wonderful  divine  interposition,  separated 
from  the  vile  and  blaspheming,  as  a  people 
henceforth  and  for  ever  specially  ordained 
to  hear  God's  messengers  and  to  obey  God's 
law.  That  baptism  was  not  an  immersion, 
the  hosts  of  Pharaoh  alone  were  immersed  ; 
but  it  was  a  mysterious  consecration,  an  ab- 
solution, an  induction  into  a  new  and  holier 
state,  a  purification.  Augustine  (Serm.  de 
Catach.,  vol.  9,  p.  320,  Paris,  1586,)  speaks 
of  it  as  a  "salvation  by  water. "  "  One  ele- 
ment," says  he,  "  by  the  command  of  the 
Creator,  judged  both;  for  it  separated  the 
16 


178 

righteous  from  the  wicked.  The  former  it 
washed)  the  latter  it  overwhelmed;  the  for- 
mer it  purified,  the  latter  it  destroyed."  In 
the  same  way  in  Romans  6:  3,  11,  Chris- 
tians are  said  to  be  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  because  in  him  their  old  body  of  sin 
is  destroyed,  their  guilt  absolved,  their  im- 
purities purged  out  and  a  glorious  renovation 
effected.  There  can  be  no  immersion  in 
Christ,  nor  yet  in  the  death  of  Christ;  but 
there  is  absolution  in  Christ,  and  in  his 
death,  and  purification  ;  for  his  blood  cleans- 
eth  from  all  sin.  And  there  is  not  a  single 
instance  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 
baptizo  is  used,  where  it  does  not  naturally, 
if  not  necessarily,  take  the  sense  of  reli- 
gious purification. 

The  testimony  from  the  fathers  that  bapti- 
zo has  the  sense  of  katharizo,  and  in  Chris- 
tian language  means  a  religious  purifying, 
is  almost  without  limit,  as  Dr.  Beecher  has 
satisfactorily  shown. 

Take  the  lexicographers  Zonaras  and 
Phavorinus.  They  were  not  among  the 
early  fathers,  but  they  give  us  dictionaries 


179 

founded  on  the  early  fathers.  Zonaras  was 
one  of  the  four  leading  Byzantine  historians. 
He  wrote  annals  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  down  to  A.D.  1118,  and  various  com- 
mentaries on  apostolic  canons,  decrees  of 
councils,  etc.  Tittman  says  of  his  lexicon, 
lt  I  consider  it,  after  that  of  Hesychius,  the 
most  learned  of  all  others  that  survive,  the 
most  copious  and  most  accurate."  And  yet 
these  great  lexicographers  say  not  one  word 
about  immersion  in  connection  with  baptism. 
They  define  "  Baptisma — The  remission  of 
sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit — the  unspeaka- 
ble forgiveness  of  sins — the  loosing  of  the 
bond  (of  sin)  granted  by  the  love  of  God  to- 
wards men — the  voluntary  arrangement  of 
a  new  life  towards  God — the  releasing  or 
recovery  of  the  soul  to  that  which  is  better, 
to  holiness."  All  these  are  exact  definitions 
of  religious  purifying.  They  are  all  mean- 
ings of  katharizo.  And  surely  those  words 
must  be  synonymous  to  which  the  same  de- 
flations are  given. 

•But  these   are  not  the  mere   opinions  of 
Zonaras  and  Phavorinus.     They  are  taken 


180 

almost  literally  from  the  fathers.  Basil  on 
Jsaiah  4 :  4,  sets  himself  to  give  a  formal 
and  comprehensive  definition  of  the  whole 
import  of  baptisma.  In  this  definition  he 
gives  three  significations  or  applications  of 
the  word,  in  each  of  which  the  idea  of  puri- 
fication is  the  uppermost.  He  says  that 
baptism  means  purification  from  filth,  spirit- 
ual purification,  (pneumatos  anagennesis,) 
and  purgation  or  trial  by  the  fire  of  the  judg- 
ment. Clement  calls  the  washing  of  Penel- 
ope and  the  wetting  of  the  hands  of  Telem- 
achus  with  sea-water,  in  Homer,  and  the 
lustrations  of  the  Jews  whilst  reclining  on 
(epi)  their  couches,  baptisms,  certainly  not 
because  they  were  immersions,  they  were 
not  immersions,  but  because  they  were  reli- 
gious purifyings.  Justin  Martyr  calls  de- 
liverance from  evil  passions  a  baptism. 
Origen  calls  martyrdom  a  baptism.  Am- 
brose calls  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the 
paschal  lamb  on  the  doors  in  Egypt  a  bap- 
tism. Cyril  calls  the  sprinkling  of  the 
ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  on  the  unclean  a 
baptism.     Tertullian  calls  the  heathen  cer- 


181 

emonies  of  sprinkling  themselves,  their  tem- 
ples, &c,  baptisms.  Athanasius  calls  the 
placing  of  John's  hand  upon  the  Saviour's 
head  a  baptism.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  in 
his  39ih  discourse,  calls  martyrdom,  pen- 
ance and  purgation  in  another  life,  baptisms. 
Some  of  these  same  fathers  call  the  washing 
of  the  disciples'  feet  by  Christ  a  baptism. 
How  can  all  this  be  explained,  unless  we 
take  the  word  baptism  in  the  sense  of  reli- 
gious purification  ?  Anastasius  says  he 
would  not  hesitate  to  call  mourning  a  bap- 
tism. He  says  that  "affliction,  with  humil- 
ity and  silence,  is  a  baptism."  And  the 
reason  he  assigns  is,  that  "it  purifies  a 
man."  Tertullian  calls  the  water  and 
blood  that  issued  from  the  side  of  Christ  two 
baptisms,  of  course  not  immersions,  but  pu- 
rifications or  purifiers.  Maximus,  (vol.  2, 
p.  459,  Paris,  1675,)  says  that  "  sons  of 
thunder  "  means  sons  of  baptism.  The  ex- 
planation he  gives  is,  that  thunder  is  com- 
posed of  water  and  air,  an  initiation  into  the 
mystery  of  purification.  His  philosophy  is 
faulty  and  his  language  involved ;  but  the 
16* 


182 

passage  is  sufficient  to  show  that  he  consid- 
ered purification  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word  baptism.  Chrysostom  uses  it  inter- 
changeably with  remission  and  reconcilia- 
tion^ and  Cyprian  with  the  words  washing  and 
cleansing ;  all  of  which  requires  the  sense  of 
purification.  Josephus  also,  though  not  a 
Christian,  speaks  of  John's  baptism  as  a 
purification ;  (Ant.  lib.  18,  cap.  5,  sec.  2.) 
Chrysostom,  in  his  33d  Homily,  says  that 
Christ  "  calls  his  cross  and  death  a  cup  and 
baptism, — a  cup,  because  he  readily  drank 
it ;  baptism,  because  by  it  he  purified  the 
world."  Theophylact'  on  Matt.  20  :  22,  23, 
says  that  Jesus  "  calls  his  death  a  baptism, 
as  making  a  purification  or  expiation  (kath- 
artikon)  for  all  of  us."  So  also  on  Mark 
10 :  38,  39,  he  says  that  Jesus  "  calls  his 
cross  baptism,  as  about  to  make  a  puiifica- 
tion  (katharismon)  for  sin."  Gregory  Na- 
zianzen  speaks  of  Christ's  baptism  in  the 
Jordan  as  his  purification  (kathairomenon) 
in  the  Jordan.  Several  fathers  call  the  tears 
of  penitence  or  prayer  baptism ;  certainly 
not    because    suppliants   were    totally   im- 


183 

mersed  in  them,  but  because,  as  Nilus,  the 
disciple  of  Chrysostom,  says,  they  are  "good 
wash-basins  for  the  soul ;"  or,  as  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  says,  "  fountains,  by  means  of 
which  you  can  wash  off  the  spots  and  pollu- 
tions of  your  soul."  In  the  passage  from 
Origen  (by  accident  ascribed  to  Cyprian 
on  page  65)  relative  to  the  baptism  of 
the  wood,  altar  and  hewn  bullock  in  Eli- 
jah's sacrifice,  the  sense  of  purify  is  ex- 
pressly assigned  to  baptizo.  The  passage  is 
this :  "  How  came  you  (the  Jews)  to  think 
that  Elias,  when  he  should  come,  would 
baptize?  who  did  not  himself  baptize  the 
wood  upon  the  altar  in  the  clays  of  Ahab, 
although  it  needed  to  be  purified,  but  com- 
manded the  priests  to  do  it."  Baptism  and 
purification  are  here  used  interchangeably 
with  each  other,  and  the  author  only  means 
to  affirm  that  the  baptizing  or  purifying  of 
the  wood  on  the  altar  was  not  performed  by 
Elijah  himself,  but  by  the  priests. 

But  this  is  slill  not  all.  The  command  in 
Isaiah  1  :  16,  is  a  command  to  wash,  make 
clean   and   put   away  evil.     Justin  Martyr, 


184 

Cyril  and  Hippolytus  call  it  a  prophetic  in- 
junction of  baptism.  The  promise  in  Eze- 
kiel  26 :  25,  is  a  promise  to  sprinkle  with 
clean  water  and  to  cleanse  from  fllthiness 
and  idols.  Cyprian,  Jerome  and  others  pro- 
nounce it  a  prediction  concerning  baptism. 
The  prophecy  in  Isaiah  4  :  4,  relates  to  pu- 
rification by  washing,  judgment  and  the 
spirit  of  burning.  Basil,  Origen,  Eusebius 
and  Theodoret  call  it  baptism,  which  is 
partly  accomplished  in  the  present  life  and 
partly  in  the  life  to  come.  The  declaration 
in  Psalm  66  :  10,  speaks  only  of  the  process 
by  which  metals  are  freed  from  dross.  One 
writing  in  the  name  of  Chrysostom  calls  it  a 
baptism  ;  "  for,"  says  he,  "  as  gold  or  silver 
is  purified  in  the  furnace  by  consuming  the 
dross,  so  a  man,  placed  in  the  furnace  of  af- 
fliction, is  purified. "  Malachi  3  :  3,  speaks 
only  of  purifying  and  purging.  Theodoret 
and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  speak  of  it  as  a 
prophecy  of  baptism,  and  comment  upon  it 
as  explaining  why  the  Jews  demanded  of 
John  why  he  baptized,  if  he  was  neither 
Elias  nor  the  Christ.     And  Athanasius  says 


185 

explicitly,  "  The  expression,  he  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  means  this, 
that  he  shall  purify  you  (kathariei  hu- 
mas.)  Indeed  Cyprian  has  this  broad  de- 
claration, that  "  as  often  as  water  alone  is 
mentioned  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  baptism 
is  alluded  to ;"  because,  says  Isidore  Hispa- 
lensis,  "  water  is  a  purifier,  and  is  the  only 
element  that  purifies  all  things.  Augustine 
also  has  this  passage,  "  When  we  say  that 
Christ  baptizes,  we  do  not  say  that  he  holds 
and  washes  in  water  the  body  of  the  believ- 
er, but  that  he  invisibly  purifies  him,  and 
not  only  him,  but  the  whole  Church." 

From  all  this  is  not  the  conclusion  inevit- 
able, that  baptizo,  as  a  religious  term,  does 
not  mean  "  a  total  immersion  and  nothing 
else,"  nor  yet  to  sprinkle  or  pour,  but  to 
purify,  without  limitation  as  to  mode?  Even 
Maimonides,  upon  whom  Dr.  Fuller  relies  so 
much,  applies  the  word  baptism  to  a  general 
religious  purification.  "  There  are  three 
things,"  says  he,  "  by  which  the  Israelites 
entered  into  covenant  with  God,  circumcis- 
ion,   baptism,    and   sacrifice.     Baptism  was 


186 

practiced  in  the  desert  before  the  giving  of 
the  law ;  for  God  said  to  Moses,  sanctify 
them."  (Issure  Biah,  Perek  13.)  Did  Mo- 
ses immerse  the  people  ?  Certainly  not.  He 
only  commanded  them  to  purify  themselves 
by  taking  care  that  no  defilement  was  on 
them,  by  abstaining  from  all  fleshly  indul- 
gences, and  by  washing  their  clothes,  re- 
penting of  their  sins,  and  lifting  their  hearts 
to  God.  And  this  general  purification  is  cited 
as  an  instance  and  an  evidence  of  Mosaic 
baptism.  Indeed,  so  thoroughly  were  some 
of  the  translators  of  the  Bible  convinced  that 
to  baptize  is  to  purify,  that  the  Saxon  Testa- 
ment has  John  le  FuIIubtere,  literally,  the 
Fuller;  and  the  Icelandic  translates  baptism 
skim,  literally,  scouring. 

And  indeed,  to  use  the  words  of  Dr. 
Beecher,  the  idea  of  purification,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  is  better  adapted  to  be  the 
name  of  this  rite  than  immersion.  It  has  a 
fitness  and  versimilitude  in  all  its  extensive 
variety  of  usage,  which  cause  the  mind  to 
feel  the  self- evidencing  power  of  truth,  as 
producing  harmony  and   agreement  in  the 


187 

most  minute,  as  well  as  in  the  most  im- 
portant relations  of  the  various  parts  of  this' 
subject  to  each  other.  First,  the  idea  of 
purification  is  the  fundamental  idea  in  the 
whole  subject.  Second,  it  is  an  idea  com- 
plete and  definite  in  itself  in  every  sense, 
and  needs  no  adjunct  to  make  it  more  so. 
Third,  it  is  the  soul  and  centre  of  a  whole 
circle  of  delightful  ideas  and  words.  It 
throws  out  before  the  mind  a  flood  of  rich 
and  glorious  thoughts,  and  is  adapted  to  op- 
erate upon  the  feelings  like  a  perfect  charm. 
To  a  sinner  desiring  salvation,  what  two 
ideas  so  delightful  as  forgiveness  and  puri- 
ty ?  Both  are  condensed  in  this  one  word. 
It  involves  in  itself  a  deliverance  from  the 
guilt  of  sin  and  from  its  pollution.  It  is  a 
purification  from  sin  in  every  sense.  It  is 
purification  by  the  atonement  and  purifica- 
tion by  the  truth, — by  water  and  by  blood. 
And  around  these  ideas  cluster  others  like- 
wise, of  holiness,  salvation,  eternal  joy,  eter- 
nal life.  No  other  word  can  produce  such 
delight  on  the  heart  and  send  such  a  flood  of 
light  into  all  the  relations  of  divine  truth ; 


188 

for  purity,  in  the  broad  scripture  sense,  is  the 
joy  and  salvation  of  man  and  the  crowning 
glory  of  God. 

Of  immersion  none  of  these  things  are 
true.  It  is  not  a  fundamental  idea  in  any 
subject  or  system.  By  itself  it  does  not  con- 
vey any  one  fixed  idea,  but  depends  on  its 
adjuncts  and  varies  with  them.  Immersion  J 
In  what  ?  clean  water  or  filthy  1  in  a  dye- 
fluid  or  in  wine  ?  Until  these  questions  are 
answered  the  word  is  of  no  use.  And  with 
the  spiritual  sense  the  case  is  still  worse ; 
for  common  usage  limits  it  in  English,  Lat- 
in, Greek,  and  so  far  as  we  know,  in  all 
languages,  by  its  adjuncts,  of  a  kind  deno- 
ting calamity  or  degradation,  and  never  puri- 
ty. It  has  intimate  and  firmly-established 
associations  with  such  words  as  luxury,  ease, 
indolence,  sloth,  cares,  anxieties,  troubles, 
distresses,  sins,  pollution,  death.  We  famil- 
iarly speak  of  immersion  and  sinking  in  all 
these ;  but  with  their  opposites  the  idea  of 
immersion  refuses  alliance.  Sinking  and 
downward  motion  are  naturally  allied  with 
ideas  which,  in  a  moral  sense,  are  depressed 


189 

and  debased,  and  not  with  such  as  are  ele- 
vated and  pure.  And  for  what  reason  should 
the  God  of  order,  purity,  harmony  and  taste 
select  an  idea  for  the  name  of  his  own  be- 
loved rite  so  alien  from  it,  and  reject  one  in 
every  respect  so  desirable  and  so  fit  ?  Who 
does  not  feel  that  the  name  of  so  delightful 
an  idea  as  purification  must  be  the  name  of 
the  rite  ?  And  who  does  not  rejoice  that 
there  is  proof  so  unanswerable  that  such  is 
the  signification  of  the  word  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  every  where  uses  to  denote  this  holy 
Christian  sacrament  ? 


17 


190 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Transitions  in  the  meaning  of  Words — Baptist 
Sophistry — Scriptural  hints  respecting  mode 
in  Baptism — Baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost — 
Bloody  Baptism  of  Christ — Typical  Bab- 
tisms  under  the  Law. 

After  what  has  now  been  said,  it  is  impos- 
sible for  any  man,  open  to  receive  the  truth, 
not  to  be  convinced  that  the  New  Testament 
and  Christian  use  of  baptizo  is  to  signify  a 
religious  purifying,  without  regard  to  mode. 
That  the  sacred  and  Christian  writers  have 
used  it  in  this  sense,  and  that  with  reference 
to  purifyings  performed  in  every  variety  of 
mode,  is  settled — may  we  not  say,  demon- 
strated? It  is  not  a  matter  of  analogy  or 
inference,  but  a  matter  of  fact,  which  ten 
thousand  proofs  that  baptizo  among  the  old 
heathen  Greeks  originally  meant  to  immerse, 
dip,  sink  and  drown  cannot  at  all  affect  or 
set  aside  ; — a  matter  of  fact  so  fully  proven 
and  so  firmly  established  that  a  man  might 
as  well   attempt  to  turn  the  course  of  the 


191 

Mississippi  across  the  rocky  mountains,  or  to 
overthrow  the  eternal  hills,  as  to  undertake 
to  strike  it  from  among  the  fixed  verities  of 
things. 

Nor  should  it  be  thought  strange  or  re- 
markable  that  a  word  which  once  so  fre- 
quently meant  to  dip  and  plunge  has  thus 
passed  over  to  signify  a  religious  purifi- 
cation, without  regard  to  the  manner  of  its 
performance.  Dr.  Beecher  has  justly  re- 
marked that  "  no  principle  is  more  univer- 
sally  admitted  by  all  sound  philologists,  than 
that  to  establish  the  original  and  primitive 
meaning  of  a  word  is  not  at  all  decisive  as 
regards  its  subsequent  usages  ;"  that  "it  is 
too  plain  to  be  denied,  that  words  do  often  so 
far  depart  from  their  primitive  meaning  as 
entirely  to  leave  out  the  original  idea;"  and 
that  "such  transitions  are  particularly  com- 
mon in  words  of  the  class  of  baptizo,  deno- 
ting action  by  or  with  reference  to  a  fluid." 
We  will  condense  a  few  of  his  examples. 
Tingo  certainly  once  meant  only  to  immerse 
and  dip;  then  to  dye  or  color,  as  ordinarily 
performed  by  immersing  the  articles  to  be 


192 

colored  ;  then  to  color  or  stain,  without  refer- 
ence to  mode;  and  lastly,  it  gave  rise- to  the 
English  words  tinge  and  tint,  in  which  there 
is  not  the  least  thought  of  immersion.  The 
original  idea  of  wash  was  simply  to  cleanse 
by  a  purifying  fluid  ;  afterward  it  came  to 
signify  the  application  of  a  superficial  color- 
ing, as  to  white-wash,  yellow-wash,  or  to 
wash  with  silver  or  gold ;  and  finally,  it  has 
come  into  a  use  where  the  original  idea  of 
purity  is  entirely  lost,  as  when  we  speak  of 
the  washes  of  a  cow-yard  or  from  the  streets. 
Let  once  meant  only  to  hinder ;  now  it 
means  only  to  permit.  And  similar  transi- 
tions may  he  traced  in  the  words  conversa- 
tion, charily,  prevent,  &c.  Indeed  this  doc- 
trine of  transition  in  the  meaning  of  words 
is  so  clear  and  undeniable  that  the  most 
learned  Baptists  have  not  hesitated  to  admit 
it.  Mr.  Carson  says  that  "  nothing  in  the 
history  of  words  is  more  common  than  to 
enlarge  or  diminish  their  signification.  Ideas 
not  originally  included  are  *often  affixed,  while 
others  drop  ideas  originally  asserted.  In 
this  way  bapto,  (the  very  word   from   which 


193 

baptizo  comes,)  from  signifying  mere  mode, 
came  to  be  applied  to  a  certain  operation 
usually  performed  in  that  mode;  from  signi- 
fying to  dip  it  came  to  signify  to  dye  by 
dipping,  because  this  was  the  way  in  which 
things  were  usually  dyed  ;  and  afterwards, 
from  dyeing  by  dipping,  it  came  to  denote 
dyeing  in  any  manner.  A  like  process  may 
be  shown  in  the  history  of  a  thousand  other 
words."  See  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  44, 
Philadelphia  edition,  1850. 

Well  then,  if  this  is  a  process  so  clear,  and 
furnishing  so  many  illustrations,  and  if  lap- 
to,  "  from  signifying  mere  mode"  passed  to 
the  signification  only  of  an  effect  produced 
"in  any  manner"  why  could  not  its  deriva- 
tive baptizo  pass  through  a  similar  transition, 
from  signifying  immersion  to  the  sense  of 
cleansing  by  immersion,  and  from  cleansing 
by  immersion  to  the  sense  of  cleansing  "  in 
any  manner  ,"  to  denote  only  the  idea  of  pu- 
rification ?  Reasoning  from  analogy,  or 
from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  there  is  no- 
thing to  prevent  such  a  transition.  On  the 
other  hand,  Dr.  Beecher  has  shown  that  cir- 
17* 


194 

cumstances  existed  prior  to  the  time  of  Christ 
rendering  such  a  transition  exceedingly  prob- 
able. And  that  baptizo  did  pass  through 
some  such  transition,  or  from  the  beginning 
had  associated  with  it  a  meaning,  so  as  to 
be  employed  by  the  inspired  and  the  early 
Christian  writers  to  denote  simply  a  purifi- 
cation, without  limitation  as  to  mode,  is 
abundantly  proven  by  the  conclusive  argu- 
ments presented  in  the  preceding  number. 

This  one  fact  then  effectually  and  for  ever 
disposes  of  all  Dr.  Fuller's  quotations  from 
the  old  heathen  Greeks  to  prove  that  baptizo 
in  the  New  Testament  "  signifies  a  total 
immersion  and  nothing  else."  If  it  did 
originally  mean  to  dip,  it  had  acquired  the 
additional  sense  of  wash  and  cleanse  long 
before  the  Saviour's  time.  Of  this  all  the 
lexicographers  are  witnesses.  The  Septua- 
gint,  which,  according  to  Dr.  Fuller's  ac- 
count, was  written  more  than  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  before  Christ,  uses  it  in- 
terchangeably with  louo,  which  means  to 
wash,  without  reference  to  mode.  And  so  it 
is  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  in  this 


195 

one  fixed  and  uniform  sense  of  purification, 
without  limitation  as  to  manner,  We  chal- 
lenge all  the  Baptist  learning  in  the  world 
to  produce  from  the  New  Testament  one 
single  instance  in  which  its  signification  is 
necessarily  limited  to  immersion.  In  all 
their  multiplied  books,  tracts  and  arguments 
on  this  subject  they  have  never  produced 
such  an  instance.  They  cannot  produce 
such  an  instance.  There  is  none  such  in 
existence. 

With  characteristic  regard  for  fairness,  it 
is  the  constant  habit  of  Baptist  writers  to 
treat  us  and  our  position  as  if  we  held  that 
baplizo  means  to  sprinkle  or  pour.  Dr.  Ful- 
ler ascribes  this  to  us  as  our  doctrine  again 
and  again.  We  deny  it,  and  hurl  back  his 
statements  on  this  point  as  unmanly  sophis- 
try. WTe  maintain  no  such  thing.  This 
would  be  limiting  the  word  to  mode,  just  like 
himself.  We  do  not  say  that  it  never  means 
to  sprinkle  ;  Schrevelius  and  Scapula  trans- 
late it  by  lavo,  which  often  has  the  sense  of 
sprinkling;  but  our  doctrine  is,  that  baptizo 
in  its  New  Testament  and  Christian  sense 


196 

means  to  purify,  without  limitation  as  to  mode. 
We  do  not  read,  In  those  days  came  John 
the  sprinkler,  or  John  the  pourer,  or  John  the 
dipper,  but  John  the  purifier  ; — not  I  indeed 
pour  you  with  water  unto  repentance,  nor  I 
indeed  dip  you  with  water  unto  repentance,  but 
I  indeed  purify  you  with  water  ; — not  There 
standeth  one  among  you  who  shall  sprinkle 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  dip  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,  but  one  who  shall 
purify  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire  ; — not  Fie  that  belie veth  and  is  sprinkled 
or  dipped  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believ- 
eth  and  is  purified  shall  be  saved  ; — not  Ye 
are  sprinkled  in  Christ's  death,  or  dipped  in 
Christ's  death,  but  purified  in  Christ's  death  ; 
— not  that  The  fathers  were  poured  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud,  or  sprinkled  unto  Moses 
in  the  cloud,  much  less  dipped  unto  Moses 
in  the  cloud,  but  purified  unto  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea ; — not  Go  ye  and  make 
disciples  of  all  nations,  pouring  them,  or 
plunging  them,  but  purifying  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the   Holy  Ghost.     Only  let  our  position  be 


197 

fairly  stated,  and  the  Baptist  theory  will  re- 
fute itself.  Dr.  Fuller  sees  this,  and  hence 
his  equivocation  and  sophistry. 

We  proceed  now  to  inquire  how  far  Dr. 
Fuller's  theory,  that  the  plunging  of  the 
subject  into  the  element,  is  requisite  to  valid 
baptism,  is  sustained  by  those  incidental  ex- 
pressions given  by  the  Bible  in  connection 
with  this  point.  We  do  not  expect  to  prove 
that  the  Scriptures  any  where  lay  down  any 
one  specific  mode  for  the  performance  of  this 
baptismal  purification,  any  more  than  to  find 
inspired  direction  as  to  any.  one  specific  mode 
of  receiving  or  administering  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  Scriptures  no  where  prescribe 
specific  modes  for  the  observance  of  either  of 
these  two  great  Christian  sacraments.  And 
we  call  upon  Dr.  Fuller  and  all  his  teachers 
to  produce  the  passage  which  will  confute 
this  statement.  But  still  there  are  some  in- 
cidental  expressions  bearing  upon  the  subject 
of  mode  to  which  we  desire  to  direct  atten- 
tion. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  what  is  said 
about  the   baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 


198 

of  the  mode  of  action  by  which  this  baptism 
is  effected.  John's  testimony  concerning 
Jesus  was,  "  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Jesus  himself  promised  his 
disciples,  "  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father 
upon  you ;  tarry  ye  in  the  city  until  ye  be 
endued  with  poicerfrom  on  high."  6t  Ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many 
days  hence  ;"  Luke  24  :  49,  Acts  1  :  5. 
w  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully 
come,  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from 
heaven ;  .  and  there  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon 
each  of  them,  and  they  were  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  Acts  2  :  1,  2.  Peter  says  of 
Cornelius  and  his  friends,  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning  ;" 
Acts  10:44.  "God  .  .  gave  them  the 
Holy  Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto  us.,}  John 
says,  "  I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from 
heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him  ;" 
John  1  :  32.  Peter  says  of  the  baptism  of 
Pentecost,  "  This  is  that  which  was  spoken 
by  the  prophet  Joel,  .  .  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit."      "Jesus,    having    received  of  the 


199 

Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath 
shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and 
hear:"  Acts  2  :  16,  17,  33.  "Peter  and 
John  prayed  for  the  people  of  Samaria,  that 
they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  as 
yet  he  had  fallen  upon  none  of  them  ;" 
Acts  8  :  15,  16.  "  God  anointed  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost;"  Acts  10  : 
3S.  '•'  While  Peter  yet  spake,  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the 
word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision  were 
astonished,  .  .  because  that  on  the  Gentiles 
also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;"  Acts  10  :  44,  45.  Paul  speaks  of 
"the  Holy  Ghost  which  he  shed  on  us;" 
Tit.  3  :  6.  Peter  speaks  of  the  first  minis- 
ters as  having  "  preached  the  gospel,  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven  ;" 
1  Peter  1  :  12.  And  in  Ephesians  1:13, 
we  have  the  phrase,  "  sealed  with  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

Now  all  this  language  concerning  the 
falling,  descending,  pouring  out,  shedding 
forth,  falling  upon,  anointing,  sitting  on,  and 
sealing,  describes  mode  as  to  the   baptisms  of 


200 

the  Holy  Ghost.  And  what  is  very  remark- 
able, every  one  of  these  terms  is  wholly  at 
war  with  the  idea  of  immersion.  They  all 
describe  the  baptismal  element  as  descending, 
as  being  applied  to  the  subject.  How,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  could  this  be,  if  bap- 
tism is  a  plunging  of  the  subject,  a  total  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else  ?  If  baptizo  in- 
cludes mode,  and  that  mode  is  immersion,  then 
the  idea  of  immersion  must  fit  and  harmon- 
ize  with  all  these  scriptural  allusions  to 
mode  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism. That  it  does  not  thus  fit,  the  following 
experimentum  cruris  will  show  :  "  This  is 
that  which  was  spoken,  .  I  will  immerse  out 
my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  "  I  saw  the  Spirit 
immersing  from  heaven  like  a  dove."  "  Je- 
sus hath  immersed  forth  this  which  ye  now 
see  and  hear."  "As  yet  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  immersed  upon  none  of  them."  "  On 
the  Gentiles  also  was  immersed  out  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  The  Holy  Ghost, 
which  he  immersed  on  us."  "The  Holy 
Ghost  immersed  down  from  heaven  !"  How 
ridiculous  and  shocking  would  be  such  read- 


201 

ings!  And  the  whole  ground  of  the  diffi- 
culty thus  exhibited  lies  in  this,  that  the 
Scriptures  contemplate  the  application  of 
the  baptismal  element  to  the  subject,  and 
frame  their  lansmacre  accordingly  ;  but  Dr. 
Fuller's  theory  contemplates  the  application 
of  the  subject  to  the  element.  And  the  lan- 
guage which  describes  the  one  operation 
cannot  possibly  be  made  to  construe  with 
that  which  describes  the  other. 

So  far  then  as  concerns  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  the  doctrine  that  the  subject  must  be 
plunged  into  the  baptismal  element  in  order 
to  be  baptized  is  not  only  without  scriptural 
foundation,  but  in  absolute  contradiction  to 
every  word  which  the  Spirit  of  God  itself 
has  employed  to  describe  the  mode  of  one  of 
its  own  operations.  The  \yhole  description 
implies  and  relates  to  affusion.  There  is 
not  one  single  expression  that  will  tolerate 
the  idea  of  immersion. 

And  if  the  idea  of  affusion  is  thus  divinely 

appropriated  as  descriptive   of  the   baptism 

by  the   Holy  Ghost,  what  is   more   natural 

than  to  infer  that  the  same  mode  holds  good 

18 


202 

and  is  agreeable  to  the  divine  mind  with 
regard  to  the  baptism  by  water?  There  is 
necessarily  a  close  resemblance  between 
them.  In  many  passages  the  same  expres- 
sions are  applied  to  both.  Indeed  one  is  the 
type  of  the  other.  And  in  the  absence  of 
direct  proof  to  the  contrary,  are  we  not 
bound  to  believe  that  the  mode  in  one  is 
correspondent  with  the  mode  in  the  other  ? 
When  Peter  saw  the  Holy  Ghost  falling  on 
Cornelius  and  his  friends,  his  mind  instantly 
recurred  to  the  baptism  of  John.  "Then 
remembered  I,  .  .  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  What  laws  of  mental  association 
could  thus  carry  him  back  from  the  contem- 
plation of  the  affusion  of  the  Spirit  to  a  water 
baptism,  unless  that  water  baptism  was  per- 
formed by  a  similar  affusion? 

We  look  next  at  the  baptism  of  Christ 
spoken  of  in  Luke  12  :  50,  Mark  10  :  38, 
Matt.  20  :  22,  23.  This  is  uniformly  un- 
derstood by  Origen,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Augustine,  and  all  the  fathers,  as  a  baptism 
of  blood.     But  the  Saviour  never  was  totally 


203 

immersed  in  blood.  In  the  garden  he  was 
only  bedewed  with  drops  oozing  from  his 
pores.  On  the  cross  he  was  merely  stained 
with  what  trickled  from  his  pierced  hands, 
feet  and  temples,  and  flowed  from  his  wound- 
ed side.  If  we  understand  it  of  the  wrath 
of  God  which  he  endured  for  sinners,  that 
wrath  is  always  spoken  of  as  poured  out ; 
Ps.  69  :  24,  79  :  6  ;  Jer.  10  :  25  ;  Ez.  7  :  8, 
21  :  31  ;  2  Chron.  12  :  7  ;  Is.  42  :  25;  Jer. 
7  :  20  :  Lam.  2:4;  Ez.  20  :  33.  If  we 
understand  it  of  the  stripes  and  iniquities 
which  he  bore  for  the  world's  salvation, 
these  things  are  every  where  spoken  of  as 
laid  on  him  ;  Is.  53  :  4,  6,  8  ;  1  Pet.  2  :  24. 
And  it  would  be  doing  violence  to  the  ordi- 
nary construction  of  language  to  read  the 
Saviour's  words  as  if  he  had  said  :  u  Are  ye 
able  to  be  immersed  with  the  immersion  I 
am  immesred  with  V  "  I  have  an  immersion 
to  be  immersed  with."  "Can  ye  be  im- 
mersed with  the  immersion  I  am  immersed 
with?"  How  much  more  natural  and  con- 
sistent to  understand  the  question,  "  Can  you 
endure  to  have  laid  or  poured  upon  you  what 


204 

I  have  laid  upon  me  ?"  So  that  in  regard 
to  this  baptism,  as  in  regard  to  the  baptism 
by  the  Spirit,  the  entire  phraseology  of  the 
Bible  contemplates  the  application  of  the 
element  to  the  subject  in  a  way  answering 
to  affusion,  and  to  affusion  alone. 

We  look  next  at  the  relation  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christian  baptism  to  the  old  econo- 
my, to  see  what  light  can  be  gathered  as  to  the 
mode  of  its  administration.  Whatever  Dr. 
Fuller  may  say  to  the  contrary,  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  the  development  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment— the  flower  of  which  that  was  the  stem 
— the  harvest  of  which  that  was  the  seed-time 
— the  full-grown  man  of  which  that  was  the 
swaddling  infant.  All  great  and  sound  theo- 
logians, from  Paul  to  the  present  moment, 
have  uniformly  so  regarded  it.  Jesus,  the 
great  theme  and  substance  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, is  the  same  of  whom  Moses  in  the 
law  and  the  prophets  did  write.  And  there 
is  not  one  marked  particular  in  all  the  gos- 
pel that  had  not  its  dim  beginning  in  the  Old 
Testament.  If  we  take  Faith,  Abraham  was 
the  very  father  of  the  faithful,  and  its  most 


205 

illustrious  examples  are  found  in  the  olden 
time  ;  Rom.  4  :  11,  10  ;  Heb.  11  :  —  If  we 
take  the  Atonement,  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  sin,  was  in  the  old  sacrifices 
"slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world;" 
Rev.  13:8;  Luke  24  :  25,  27.  If  we  take 
the  Lord's  Supper,  it  was  but  an  extrication 
of  the  ancient  Passover  from  its  typical 
connections  with  the  old  covenant,  and  its 
continuance  under  forms  adapted  to  the 
transition  which  has  long  since  been  effected 
from  prophecy  to  history  ;  1  Cor.  5  :  7, 
And  so  we  are  driven  to  infer  that  baptism 
is  also  in  some  way  developed  from  germs 
which  were  planted  in  the  ancient  dispensa- 
tion. 

And  what  we  are  thus  led  to  infer  a  priori 
is  very  clearly  taught  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.  As  there  was  a  Mosaic  atonement 
and  a  Mosaic  supper,  so  there  were  also 
Mosaic  baptisms.  Paul,  in  summing  up  the 
various  services  of  the  Levitical  economy, 
says  that  they  consisted  of  "  meats,  and 
drinks,  and  divers  baptisms  ;"  Heb.  9  :  10. 
What  these  various  baptisms  were  and  how 
18* 


206 

they  were  performed  we  have  already  shown. 
But  Paul  speaks  particularly  of  some  of  them 
and  gives  the  mode  of  their  administration. 
He  tells  us  of  baptisms  by  "  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer 
sprinkling  the  unclean,"  which  "sancti- 
fied to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh;"  Heb.  9: 
13.  He  tells  us  also  of  baptisms  by  "the 
Hood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  water  and  scar- 
let wool,  and  hyssop  sprinkled  upon  both  the 
book  and  all  the  people;"  Heb.  9  :  19. 
He  also  designates  these  things  as  "signs" 
"  patterns,"  "  figures  for  the  times  then  pres- 
ent ;"  Heb.  9  :  9,  23,  24.  In  these  typical 
baptisms  the  mode  is  specifically  given. 
That  mode  is  the  sprinkling  of  the  baptismal 
element  upon  the  subject.  If  the  patterns 
therefore  were  true,  (and  when  we  consider 
that  God  himself  made  them,  we  are  bound 
to  conclude  that  they  were  true,)  it  follows 
that,  in  the  administration  of  that  higher  and 
holier  baptism,  which  these  ancient  services 
prefigured,  sprinkling  is  an  appropriate 
mode,  bearing  upon  it  the  express  sanction 
of  God  himself.     Indeed,  when  the  ancient 


207 

prophet  came  to  speak  of  the  greater  simpli- 
city and  power  of  the  ordinances  which 
Messiah  should  appoint,  these  Mosaic  bap- 
tisms at  once  rose  before  his  mind.  The 
relation  which  they  bore  to  what  was  to 
follow  he  distinctly  foresaw.  He  notes  the 
change  which  was  to  be  made  in  the  ele- 
ment, from  blood  and  water  mingled  with 
ashes,  to  something  more  directly  symbolic 
of  spiritual  purity;  but  no  alteration  in  the 
manner  or  mode  of  its  use.  And  in  the 
name  of  Him  who  was  to  come  he  announced 
to  the  children  of  promise,  "Then  will  I 

SPRINKLE    CLEAN    WATER    UPON    YOU,    and    ye 

shall  be  dean ;"  Ez.  36  :  25.  We  have  al- 
ready remarked  that  the  fathers  interpreted 
this  as  well  as  Ps.  51  :  7,  Is.  4  :  4,  Mai.  3 : 
3,  as  predictions  concerning  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  baptism. 

And  in  addition  to  all  this  the  very  signi- 
fication of  the  word  laptism,  and  of  the 
sacrament  of  which  it  is  the  name,  lays  the 
foundation  for  an  inference  that  plunging  is 
not  a  becoming  mode  for  the  administration 
of  this   rite.     We  have  seen  that  it  is  uni- 


208 

formly  employed  by  the  Scriptures  to  denote 
purification.  The  whole  meaning  of  the  or- 
dinance itself  points  to  an  inward  cleansing 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  Im- 
mersion is  not  a  symbol  of  purity.  Its  lead- 
ing import  is  destruction.  The  sinking  of  a 
man  always  signifies  degradation.  The  He- 
brew word  for  immerse  is  expressly  used  in 
Job  9  :  31,  to  denote  the  very  opposite  of 
purity.  But  the  application  of  clean  water 
to  the  subject  is  one  of  the  liveliest  images 
of  purification  that  can  be  presented  to  the 
human  mind. 

With  all  these  facts  before  us,  how  can  it 
be  possible  for  any  unprejudiced  man  to 
doubt  whether  affusion  is  a  proper  and  di- 
vinely authorized  mode  of  administering  the 
holy  sacrament  of  Christian  baptism  ?  Who 
can  look  at  them  and  in  his  heart  believe 
that  where  there  is  no  immersion  there  is  no 
baptism,  and  that  the  great  company  of 
Christ's  disciples  are  apostate  from  their 
Lord  because  they  have  not  submitted  to 
sectarian  dictation  as  to  the  necessity  of  be- 
ing plunged  under  the  water? 


209 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Dr.  Fuller's  efforts  to  set  aside  these  facts — 
Places  where  Baptism  icas  performed — 
Pools — Kedron — Enon — John's  Baptisms. 

What  has  now  been  elicited  from  the 
Scriptures  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism 
must  of  itself  be  conclusive  in  favor  of  affu- 
sion, unless  the  most  positive  and  command- 
ing reasons  to  the  contrary  are  produced. 
Let  us  see  then  what  Baptists  have  said  upon 
this  point. 

Dr.  Fuller  says,  "  My  first  argument  is 
founded  upon  the  force  of  the  verb  baptizo" 
But  this  is  a  mere  begging  of  the  question. 
The  force  of  the  word  baptizo  is  the  object 
of  inquiry  and  the  subject  of  dispute.  And 
for  Dr.  Fuller  to  argue  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment baptisms  were  immersions,  because  the 
word  means  immerse,  and  then  to  conclude 
that  the  word  means  immerse  because  the 
baptisms  respecting  which  it  is  used  were 
immersions,  is  about  as  ridiculous  a  specimen 
of  reasoning  in  a  circle   as  could   well  be 


210 

found.  It  speaks  badly  for  a  grave  doctor 
of  divinity,  and  still  worse  for  the  merits  of 
his  cause.  We  certainly  have  proven  be- 
yond confutation  that  the  word  baplizo,  in 
Christian  language,  denotes  a  religious  pu- 
rifying, without  limitation  as  to  mode  ;  that 
it  is  applied  to  religious  cleansings,  effected 
in  every  variety  of  manner  ;  and  that  there 
are  instances  abundant  in  which  it  can  by  no 
possibility  mean  immersion.  We  have  also 
proven  that  the  intimations  as  to  mode  in  the 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  bloody 
baptism  of  Christ  and  in  the  typical  baptisms 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  all  favor  affusion,  and 
for  the  most  part  exclude  immersion  alto- 
gether. And  for  Dr.  Fuller  to  argue  that 
the  New  Testament  baptisms  were  immer- 
sions because  the  word  means  immerse, 
when  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  the  point 
of  inquiry,  is  ridiculous  and  absurd. 

11  My  second  argument,"  says  he,  "  is 
drawn  from  the  places  chosen  for  baptism." 
That  is  to  say,  the  places  at  which  the  bap- 
tisms of  the  New  Testament  were  performed 
prove  that  they  were  immersions!  Well, 
let  us  see  how  this  is. 


211 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  baptisms  re- 
corded in  the  Bible  was  the  baptism  of  the 
three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
This  was  performed  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem, 
Would  Dr.  Fuller  have  us  believe  that  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  was  a  lake,  a  river,  "a 
great  conflux  of  water,"  a  general  bathing, 
place  for  the  nations  of  the  earth  !  Jerusa- 
lem was  a  mountain  city,  with  no  living 
stream  or  natural  sheet  of  standing  water 
sufficient  to  immerse  a  man  within  fifteen 
miles  of  its  location.  We  even  have  Bap. 
tist  authority  for  this.  And  yet  the  places 
at  which  the  New  Testament  baptisms  were 
performed  are  to  prove  to  us  that  they  were 
immersions! 

But  Dr.  Fuller  talks  learnedly  of  cisterns, 
pools  and  reservoirs,  and  gravely  tells  us 
that  there  were  several  such  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Jerusalem  !  He  mentions  Beth- 
esda.  But  Wilde  describes  this  as  "an 
immense,  deep,  oblong  excavation."  Rob- 
inson says  it  is  75  feet  deep  !  How  could 
3,000  be  immersed  in  such  a  place  in  one 
dav  ?     Mr.  Ewinsr  thinks  it  doubtful  whether 


212 

it  was  possible  for  more  than  one  or  two 
persons  to  descend  into  this  pool  at  a  time ; 
and  Mr.  Carson  himself  concedes,  "  If  my 
cause  obliged  me  to  prove  that  it  admitted 
tico,  I  grant  that  I  could  not  prove  it." 
What  is  said  of  this  pool  in  John  5  :  1,  4, 
can  give  us  but  little  that  is  reliable,  inas- 
much as  all  critics  consider  that  passage  as 
exceedingly  obscured  and  doubtful  by  spuri- 
ous and  questionable  readings.  Bethesda 
certainly  was  a  receptacle  for  filth,  surround- 
ed by  porches  where  sheep  were  washed, 
and  receiving  all  the  drainage  of  blood  and 
offal  from  the  temple.  Hammond,  Michaelis, 
Kuinol  and  others  attribute  its  medicinal 
properties  to  the  warm  blood  and  animal 
deposits  which  came  into  it  in  various  ways 
from  the  sacrifices.  And  when  we  consider 
that  the  persons  baptized  were  Jews,  purified 
to  attend  the  Pentecostal  festival  and  subject 
to  a  penalty  of  seven  days'  defilement  and 
exclusion  if  they  should  but  touch  any  life- 
less  animal  matter,  it  is  simply  preposterous 
to  suppose  for  one  moment  that  the  three 
thousand,    or   any    portion    of   them,    were 


213 

plunged  in  such  a  pit  of  filth  in  order  to  be 
purified  into  Jesus  Christ. 

Besides  Bethesda,  there  was  but  one  other 
open  pool,  so  far  as  we  know,  within  the  walls 
qf  Jerusalem,  the  fish-pool  by  the  fish-market. 
This  evidently  was  also  a  sort  of  drain  for 
the  water  and  filth  which  would  constantly 
be  accumulating  where  fish  for  the  entire  city 
were  handled  and  sold.  There  is  not  one  word 
of  testimony  that  it  ever  was  a  bathing-place. 
Outside  of  the  city,  and  supplied  with  a  fee- 
ble, irregular  stream  from  under  the  wall, 
was  the  pool  of  Siloam,  described  by  Lynch 
as  "a  deep,  oblong  pit."  Its  depth  was  at 
least  19  feet.  It  was  a  place  about  as  much 
adapted  to  immerse  in  as  our  ordinary  cis- 
terns and  wells.  As  to  the  upper  and  lower 
pools  of  Gihon  and  the  pool  of  Hezekiah,  all 
of  which  were  some  distance  from  the  city, 
it  is  the  uniform  testimony  of  travelers  that 
they  are  ever  dry,  except  in  seasons  of  rain. 
The  celebrated  pools  of  Solomon,  which 
supplied  water  to  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem, 
were  about  twelve  miles  from  the  city.  And 
what  is  very  unfortunate  for  the  Baptist  the- 
19 


214 

ory,  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  3,000 
says  not  a  word  about  cisterns,  pools,  reser- 
voirs, baptisteries,  or  any  thing  of  the  sort; 
no,  nor  one  word  from  which  to  infer  that 
the  awakened  multitudes  ever  removed  from 
the  spot  on  which  they  received  their  convic- 
tions until  after  their  baptism  had  been  per- 
formed. Plenty  of  pools  and  reservoirs  at 
Jerusalem  !  and  yet  Dr.  Fuller  makes  John 
take  all  its  inhabitants  out  to  Enon  to  find 
water  enough  to  immerse  them  ! 

Seeing,  however,  that  his  cause  is  so  hope- 
less in  connection  with  the  pools,  our  author 
directs  attention  to  the  little  brook  Kedron, 
as  furnishing  "  abundant  water."  But  un- 
fortunately again,  nine  months  in  the  year 
Kedron  is  dry  !  So  says  Voltaire.  So  says 
Kitto  in  his  Natural  History  of  Palestine. 
When  Spencer  visited  it  it  was  dry.  So 
when  Wilde  saw  it.  So  also  when  Stevens 
saw  it.  Indeed  Mr.  Samson,  himself  a  Bap- 
tist,  whose  wonderful  personal  observations 
about  Jerusalem  are  greatly  relied  on  by  the 
editor  of  "  The  True  Union"  remarks  that 
"  The   brook  Kedron,  as  the   original  term 


215 

indicates,  is  nothing  but  the  bed  through  which 
the  rains  of  winter  drain  off  between  the 
eastern  wall  of  the  city  and  Mount  Olivet; 
and  its  channel  is  therefore  dry  in  early 
spring,  several  weeks  before  the  period  in 
the  month  of  June  when  the  feast  of  Pen- 
tecost occurred  ;"  Baptismal  Tracts  for  the 
Times,  p.  16.  So  that  the  resort  to  Kedron 
is  even  more  desperate  than  resort  to  the 
pools. 

Dr.  Fuller  sees  that  it  will  not  answer 
for  him  to  leave  matters  in  such  an  un- 
favorable posture.  He  must  needs  give 
them  a  better  gloss,  though  he  should  have 
to  resort  to  his  old  expedient  of  altering  the 
sense  of  the  record  itself.  On  page  77  he 
solemnly  declares  that  liit  is  no  where  said 
(of  the  3,000)  that  they  were  baptized  in  one 
day!"  Let  the  reader  then  take  his  Bible 
and  examine  the  second  chapter  of  Acts. 
A  solemn  scene  is  there  spread  before  us. 
Peter,  just  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  stands 
forth  as  the  preacher  of  Jesus  to  listening 
thousands.  His  hearers  melt  under  his 
burning  words  and   call  out  to  know  what 


216 

they  must  do.  "  Peter  said  unto  them,  re- 
pent and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you." 
"  Then  " — not  in  the  course  of  a  few  days 
as  they  could  find  places  to  immerse  in — but 
"  then  " — men  oun — in  the  course  of  the 
transaction  then  present — in  immediate  con- 
tinuance of  what  went  before — "  Then  they 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  ; 
and  the  same  day  there  were  added  to  them 
about  three  thousand  souls."  Of  course  none 
were  added  to  the  disciples  but  those  who 
gladly  received  Peter's  word,  and  baptism 
was  the  divinely  appointed  method  by  means 
of  which  men  were  to  be  added  to  the  list  of 
Christ's  acknowledged  disciples.  And  yet 
they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
"  then  "  baptized,  "  and  the  same  dav  there 
were  added  to  them  about  3,000  souls."  If 
this  does  not  mean  that  they  were  all  bap- 
tized in  one  day,  it  is  useless  to  rely  upon 
language  as  a  medium  of  communication. 

So  far  then  from  proving  that  the  baptism 
of  the  3,000  vvas  performed  by  immersion, 
the  place  and  circumstances  lead  us  inevi- 
tably to  conclude   that  it  was  done  in  some 


217 

much  more  convenient  and  summary  man- 
ner. The  whole  occurrence  was  sudden, 
unexpected  and  without  previous  forethought 
or  preparation  for  the  exigencies  which  must 
have  arisen  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
subjects  were  all  to  be  immersed.  There 
was  no  water  in  or  about  Jerusalem  for  the 
immediate  immersion  of  such  multitudes. 
There  were  but  eleven  or  twelve  present 
who  had  received  the  ministerial  commission 
to  baptize  and  that  were  competent  adminis- 
trators of  this  sacrament.  It  must  have  been 
late  in  the  day  when  the  baptizing  com- 
menced. Peter  began  his  discourse  about 
nine  o'clock,  (Acts  2  :  15,)  it  was  of  long  con- 
tinuance, consisting  of  "  many  other  words  " 
more  than  are  on  record,  (2  :  40  ;)  and  the 
confusion  incident  upon  conducting  such  a 
multitude  to  a  place  fit  for  immersion  must 
have  consumed  much  time  and  greatly  hin- 
dered the  speedy  execution  of  the  work.  So 
that,  though  Dr.  Fuller  may  make  himself 
merry  over  Dr.  Kurtz's  arithmetical  process, 
he  must  remember  that  "  figures  do  not  lie," 
and  that  it  is  mathematically  demonstrable 
19* 


218 

that  no  twelve  men  under  heaven  could 
have  immersed  3,000  in  the  limited  time 
and  amid  the  embarrassing  circumstances  in 
which  that  baptism  certainly  was  performed. 
And  if  the  thing  was  so  plain  and  easy  as  he 
pretends,  if  he  is  not  himself  overcome  by 
the  numerous  impossibilities  which  hamper 
and  cripple  the  immersion  theory,  we  ask 
him  why  he  is  so  anxious  to  make  it  appear, 
even  at  the  expense  of  perverting  the  record, 
that  the  3,000  were  not  baptized  in  one  day  ? 
Why  take  to  a  resort  so  extreme,  unless 
conscious  that  his  cause  is  lost  without  it? 
Look  next  at  the  case  of  the  jailor  and  his 
family;  Acts  16: —  They  were  baptized 
in  a  prison  at  Philippi.  Dr  Fuller  tells  us 
that  Philippi  was  a  place  of  springs.  Per- 
haps he  may  yet  discover  that  it  was  a  place 
of  reservoirs  and  pools  !  But  the  question 
is,  were  these  "  confluxes  of  water"  in  the 
jail,  where  the  baptism  occurred  ?  and  was 
the  jail  such  a  place  as  to  beget  the  belief 
that  said  baptism  was  performed  by  immer- 
sion ?  He  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  notwith- 
standing the  springs,  that  Paul  took  the  jailor 


219 

and  his  family  out  at  midnight  to  some  river! 
He  seems  to  forget  Paul's  exhaustion  from 
stripes,  chains,  fasting,  vigils  and  prayers ; 
and  that  Paul  peremptorily  refused  to  leave 
the  prison  until  he  was  publicly  taken  out 
by  the  authorities  that  thrust  him  in.  (v.  37  ;) 
and  that  the  account  says  the  baptism  took 
place  during  the  exciting  scenes  of  the  night 
parachrema — on  the  spot.  "  Indeed,"  says 
Dr.  Clarke,  "all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  the  dead  of  the  night,  the  general  agi- 
tation, the  necessity  of  dispatch,  and  the 
words  of  the  text,  all  disprove  that  there  was 
any  immersion.'''' 

Look  at  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus. 
This  was  performed  in  the  sick-chamber;  at 
least  so  the  Evangelist  leaves  us  to  infer. 
For  three  days  this  smitten  persecutor  lay, 
a  blind,  exhausted  and  helpless  invalid,  upon 
his  bed.  By  direction  of  God  Ananias  came 
to  him,  and  stated  to  him  his  mission,  and 
touched  him,  and  he  arose  from  his  couch 
and  was  baptized,  and  meat  was  given  him, 
and  he  was  strengthened  ;  Acts  19:1,  19. 
What  room  is  here  to  infer  immersion  ? 


220 

Look  at  the  case  of  the  Eunuch.  He  was 
baptized  in  his  journey  through  the  desert. 
Is  a  desert  a  place  of  "  confluxes  of  water  V 
Does  the  place  here  argue  immersion  ?  The 
water  at  which  it  was  done  is  described  by 
Eusebius,  Jerome,  Reland,  and  even  Mr. 
Samson,  as  a  fountain  boiling  up  at  the  foot 
of  a  hill  and  absorbed  again  by  the  same 
soil  from  which  it  springs.  How  absurd  to 
talk  of  immersion  as  argued  from  such  a 
locality  !  Mr.  Samson,  from  personal  obser- 
vation of  the  place,  finds  it  impossible  to  get 
through  with  the  immersion  theory  without 
supposing  some  artificial  reservoir  or  other 
fixture. — (Baptismal  Tracts,  p.  160.)  What 
a  mania  for  cistern-digging  must  have  pos- 
sessed these  Jews,  that  they  should  fill  even 
the  desert  with  pools  ! 

Cornelius  and  his  friends  were  most  likely 
baptized  in  his  own  house.  The  language 
of  Peter,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized  ?"  indicates 
with  a  good  degree  of  certainty  that  no  more 
water  was  used  than  what  could  be  conve- 
niently conveyed  to  him.  How  can  this 
argue  immersion  ? 


221 

But  John's  baptism  f  Aye,  Joint's  bap- 
tism /  But  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism.  All  theologians  agree  to  this. 
Baptists  themselves  have  been  forced  to 
concede  it.  Robert  Hall  was  a  Baptist,  a 
scholar  and  a  full-hearted  man  of  God.  He 
gives  us  a  long  and  unanswerable  argument, 
showing  that  John's  baptism  was  a  wholly 
different  thing  from  the  ordinance  instituted 
by  Jesus  Christ.  See  his  Works,  vol.  1,  p. 
294.  Mr.  Carson  says  the  two  were  "  es- 
sentially  different."  Nevertheless,  Dr.  Fuller 
argues  that  John  baptized  in  (at)  Jordan  ; 
that  he  must  therefore  have  immersed  the 
people  in  the  water;  and  that  therefore 
all  other  baptisms  were  immersions  and 
nothing  else !  As  well  might  he  argue, 
that  as  "  John  baptized  in  the  wilderness," 
he  immersed  the  people  in  the  sand  ;  and 
that  therefore  all  baptisms  are  immersions 
in  the  sand  !  John  also  baptized  "  in  Beth- 
abara,  beyond  Jordan,"  This  is  the  name 
of  a  town.  Where  it  was  located  is  not 
precisely  known,  Lightfoot  says  "  it  was 
situated  in  the  Scythopolitan  country,  where 


222 

the  Jews  dwelt  among  the  Syropheni- 
cians."  It  certainly  was  neither  a  lake, 
nor  a  pool,  nor  a  river;  and  how  can  it 
prove  that  John  immersed?  John  also  bap- 
tized uin  or  at  Enon,  near  to  Salim"  Enon 
means  the  fountain  of  On.  And  if  deep 
water,  convenient  for  immersion,  was  the 
object  of  the  baptizer  in  selecting  this  spot 
for  his  operations,  why  did  he  leave  the  river 
for  a  mere  spring?  Dr.  Fuller  thinks  it 
very  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  mills  driven 
by  water  are  built  upon  firm  streams  merely 
to  supply  drink  for  the  people  who  may  visit 
them  with  their  horses  and  mules!  But 
when  we  see  these  same  establishments  per- 
forming their  offices  with  equal  facility  where 
there  are  no  firm  streams,  is  it  not  equally 
ridiculous  to  insist  that  they  are  water-mills 
at  all  ? 

But  we  are  told,  "  John  was  baptizing  in 
or  at  Enon,  because  there  were  hudata  polla, 
many  waters  there."  It  is  indeed  not  a  little 
amusing  to  see  how  Baptist  writers  comment 
upon  this  phrase.  Dr.  Fuller  wishes  to 
make  it  appear  that  hudata  polla  means  "  a 


223 

great  conflux  of  water."  He  quotes  a  num- 
ber of  passages,  such  as  "  His  voice  was  as 
the  sound  of  many  waters  ;"  '•  I  heard  a  voice 
from  heaven,  as  the  voice  of  many  waters;" 
"The  Lord  is  mightier  than  the  noise  of 
many  waters,  yea,  than  the  waves  of  the  sea;" 
"The  noise  of  their  wings  was  as  the  noise 
of  many  waters,  as  the  voice  of  the  Almighty." 
Dr.  Ryland  says  that  the  phrase  indicates  a 
body  of  water  the  sound  of  which  resembles 
mighty  thunderings,  the  sound  of  a  cataract 
or  the  roaring  of  the  sea,  and  that  it  is  a 
Hebraism  corresponding  with  mini  rabim, 
which  signifies  many  waters,  such  as  the 
waves  of  the  sea.  What  an  array!  If  we 
were  to  listen  to  these  Baptist  commentators, 
Niagara  itself  is  but  "  a  tinkling  rill  "  com- 
pared with  this  fountain  of  On,  between 
Salim  and  the  Jordan  !  Well  may  we  ex- 
claim, "Happy  Enonf  ennobled  by  such 
mighty  associations,  by  such  magnificent 
alliances!"  But,  after  all,  the  question  nar- 
rows itself  down  to  one  of  simple  geography. 
Was  there  ever  issuing  from  one  spring  a 
body  of  water  forming   many  parts  in  any 


224 

district  of  the  land  of  Judea,  in  any  locality 
accessible  to  John  the  Baptist,  by  which 
these  allusions  to  mighty  thunders,  cataracts 
and  seas  can  in  the  remotest  degree  be  justi- 
fied ?  Such  a  spring  would  have  been  the 
wonder  of  Judea  and  of  the  world.  The 
memory  of  it  could  not  have  perished.  The 
traces  of  it  would  still  be  seen,  and  some 
faint  echoes  of  its  thunders  would  certainly 
have  reached  our  times.  And  yet  Dr.  Ful- 
ler says,  "  J  grieve  to  find  several  writers 
venturing  to  assert  that  the  location  of  Enon 
is  known!"  p.  65.  Alas!  that  such  a  won- 
der in  nature  should  have  thus  perished, 
without  leaving  a  trace  behind  it !  European 
and  American  travelers  have  explored  the 
Jordan  from  Tiberiae  to  the  Dead  Sea,  but 
none  of  them  have  ever  seen  any  thing  of 
this  wonderful  discharge  of  waters.  In  a 
whole  day's  journey  down  the  Jordan,  from 
the  region  of  Scythopolis,  (eight  miles  south 
of  which  Enon  is  said  to  have  been  located,) 
Lieut.  Lynch  found  no  streams  emptying 
into  the  Jordan,  except  such  as  scarcely  rose 
in  consequence   above   mere  trickling  rivu- 


225 

lets.  In  the  time  of  Napoleon  the  French 
had  a  corps  of  horse  at  Scythopolis,  and 
roamed  the  country  down  the  Jordan,  par 
ticularly  exploring  it  on  the  West,  but  noth- 
ing did  they  find  answering  to  the  Baptist 
Enon.  All  that  history  has  preserved  re= 
specting  this  wonderful  fountain  is  what 
Jerome  repeats  from  Eusebius,  that  it  was 
eight  miles  from  Scythopolis,  south,  between 
Salim  and  the  Jordan.  Calmet  knows  noth- 
ing about  it.  And"  from  the  time  orisrael's 
exodus  to  the  present  hour  such  a  thunder, 
inof  fountain  as  Drs.  Fuller  and  Ryland 
speak  of  has  remained  unknown  to  our  ablest 
geographers,  to  our  most  adventurous  and 
observant  travelers,  and  to  our  most  inquis- 
itive  men.  It  is  enough  to  say,  there  never 
was  such  an  Enon.  And  until  "Dr.  Fuller 
produces  some  accurate  geographical  de- 
scription of  this  fountain  of  On,  to  persist  in 
comparing  it  with  the  Euphrates,  the  Tigris, 
Niagara  and  mighty  thunderings,  is  indeed 
<c  sinning  by  excess." 

But  does  not  John  say,  "  there  was  much 
water  there  ?     So  the   English  Bible  reads. 
20 


226 

In  the  original,  however,  ihe  phrase  is  fiudafa 
polla,  which  Beza  and  Prof.  Stuart  render 
■'many  streams  or  rivulets."  Dr.  Fuller 
says  that  "hudor"  never  means  "streams" 
But  Donegan  says  it  is  from  the  word  huo, 
to  wet,  to  asperse,  to  rain,  and  that  it  often 
signifies  only  the  drops  of  falling  rain  !  De- 
mosthenes against  Caliicl'es  uses  it  in  this 
sense.  And  if  Dr.  Fuller  will  take  the 
Septuagint  and  turn  to  2  Kings  2  ;  19,  he 
will  find  "hudata"  applied  to  waters  which 
Maundrell  describes  in  these  words :  '4  They 
are  at  present  received  in  a  basin,  about 
nine  or  ten  paces  long  and  five  or  six  broad, 
and  thence  issuing  out  in  good  plenty,  divide 
theinselves  into  several  small  streams,  dis- 
persing their  refreshment  to  all  ihe  field  and 
rendering  it  exceedingly  fruitful."  Taylor's 
Facts  and  Evidences,  p.  176.  We  would 
therefore  be  fully  authorized  to  adopt  the 
reading,  "John  was  baptizing  at  the  fountain 
of  On,  because  there-  were  many  streams 
there  ;"  that  is,  not  many  streams  to  immerse 
in,  but  many  streamlets  of  fountain  water, 
better  suited  than  the  Jordan   to  meet  the 


227 

wants  of  the  vast  multitudes  who  came  to 
•hear  the  prophet's  preaching. 

But  Dr.  Ryland  tells  us  that  hudata  polio. 
is  a  Hebraism  equivalent  to  mini  rabim,  and 
challenges  the  production  of  proof  that  mini 
rabim  is  ever  used  as  synonymous  with  small 
streams.  But  what  is  his  challenge  worth? 
Jn  Numbers  24  :  7,  this  phrase  is  used  to 
denote  water  "poured  out  of  buckets."  In 
Ezekiel  19  :  10,  it  is  used  to  denote  the 
small  streams  which  water  vineyards.  What 
thundering  confluxes  of  water  these  must 
have  been ! 

As  there  is  no  testimony  therefore  that  the 
waters  at  Enon  were  at  all  adapted  to  im- 
mersion, the  great  drift  of  proof  going  to 
show  that  it  was  a  place  of  rivulets  of  spring 
water,  and  not  of  thundering  cataracts,  we 
demand  of  the  Baptists  to  give  a  reason  why 
John  left  the  river,  where  alone  facilities  for 
immersion  were  found?  Does  not  the  fact 
of  such  a  change,  from  the  great  river  to 
mere  fountain  streamlets,  prove  that  John's 
baptisms  were  not  by  immersion  ? 

It  is  useless,  however,  to  pursue  this  point 


228 

any  further.  John's  baptism  was,  at  any 
rate,  not  our  Christian  sacrament ;  and  there 
is  no  proof  under  heaven  that  Enon  was 
any  thing  more  than  a  fountain,  or  that  the 
"  many  waters  there  "  were  any  thing  more 
than  small  streams  issuing  from  the  same  or 
contiguous  sources.  Indeed  if  the  Evan- 
gelist's mind  had  been  directed  to  the  waters 
of  Enon  by  the  idea  of  immersion,  it  is  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  he  would  rather  have 
spoken  of  the  depth  and  magnitude  of  one 
stream  than  thus  have  called  off  the  attention 
to  many. 

Is  it  not  also  exceedingly  strange  that 
Baptists  should  lay  so  much  stress  on  the 
"much  water"  at  Enon,  while  they  pretend 
to  find  enough  in  Jerusalem  to  immerse 
three  thousand  converts  in  a  small  part  of 
one  day  ? 

How  John  performed  his  baptisms  cannot 
be  decided  with  positive  certainty;  but  there 
are  a  few  facts  bearing  upon  the  subject, 
which,  if  assigned  their  proper  weight,  pre- 
sent a  strong  and  commanding  presumption 
that  it  was  not  by  immersion. 


229 

1.  Although  he  for  the  most  part  performed 
his  ceremony  of  purification  where  there  was 
plenty  of  water,  there  is  no  proof  that  he  ever 
went  into  the  water  to  do  it.  The  truth  of 
this  remark  is  so  clear  that  the  great  Baptist 
champion,  Mr.  Carson,  is  compelled  to  con- 
cede it.  "I  think,"  says  he,  "there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  John  the  Baptist  usually 
went  into  the  water  in  baptizing."  And  in 
order  to  make  out  immersion,  he  is  driven  to 
an  invention  of  fancy,  which  thinking  people 
must  regard  as  a  surrender  of  the  cause. 
u  The  accounts  lead  me  to  conclude,"  says 
he,  "  that  John  chose  some  place  on  the  edge 
of  the  Jordan,  that  admitted  the  immersion  of 
the  person  baptized  while  the  baptizer  re- 
mained on  the  margin ;"  and  that  hence 
"there  is  no  ground  for  the  jest  that  John 
the  Baptist  was  an  amphibious  animal." 
Bui  in  trying  to  avoid  Scylla  he  has  struck 
upon  Charybdis.  Who  ever  heard  of  a 
Baptist  preacher  administering  his  immer- 
sions without  goin«;  into  the  water  with  his 
subjects?  How  can  one  man  immerse  an- 
other in  water  the  surface  of  which  is  be- 
20* 


230 

ueath  his  feet  ?  And  if  John  could  not  have 
endured  the  amphibious  life  of  going  into  the 
water  with  each  of  his  multitudinous  candi- 
dates, common  sense  will  teach  every  man 
that  he  could  not  possibly  have  held  out  in 
the  sort  of  operation  assigned  to  him  by  the 
boasted  "perspicacity"  of  Mr.  Carson. 

2.  In  all  that  is  said  about  John's  baptiz- 
ing, and  of  the  multitudes  of  all  classes  who 
were  baptized  by  him,  there  is  not  one  even 
remote  allusion  to  those  preparations  which 
immersion  would  have  called  for.  Upon 
this  point  we  prefer  to  express  ourselves  in 
the  language  of  one  who  was  himself  for 
years  a  Baptist  minister :  "  Every  one  who 
has  been  accustomed  to  baptize  by  immer- 
sion must  certainly  know  that  it  is  necessary, 
with  respect  to  decency  and  safety,  to  change 
the  dresses  and  to  have  separate  apartments 
for  men  and  women.  This  is  evidently  ne- 
cessary, whether  we  baptize  in  a  river  or  in 
a  baptistery.  Now  it  is  certain  that,  al- 
though we  read  of  many  baptizings,  there 
is  not  the  least  intimation  given  either  of 
changing  the  dress  or  of  any  suitable  ac- 


-       231 

commodation  for  the  different  sexes.'-*  This 
is  true  with  reference  to  all  the  baptisms 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  "When 
our  Lord  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  it  is  said 
he  laid  aside  his  garments.  And  Luke, 
speaking  of  those  who  stoned  Stephen,  saysj 
They  laid  down  their  clothes  at  a  young 
man's  feet,  whose  name  was  Saul.  Now  if 
the  Scriptures  take  notice  of  the  putting  off 
of  garments  for  the  purpose  of  washing  feet 
and  stoning  a  man,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that 
as  thousands,  upon  supposition  they  were 
baptized  by  immersion,  must  eniirely  have 
changed  their  garments,  or  have  done  worse, 
the  Scriptures  should  not  drop  a  single  hint 
about  it  ?" — Edwards  on  Baptism,  p.  193. 
And  "  if  the  act  of  baptizing,"  says  Mr. 
Swing,  "  had  consisted  of  immersing  the 
subject  in  water,  there  would  surely  have 
been  some  allusion  to  the  lowering  of  his 
body  in  that  supine  direction,  which  is,  I 
believe,  commonly  observed  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  it  under  the  surface ;  some  alv 
lusion  also  to  that  stooping  attitude  which  is 
at  the  same  time  necessary  on  the  part  of 


232      - 

the  immerser,"  especially  if  he  stood  on  the 
shore.  "  But  there  is  nothing  of  this  kind 
to  be  found  in  all  the  Scriptures,  either  in 
the  accompanying  phraseology  or  in  the 
name  of  the  ordinance  itself."  Mr.  Carson 
himself  admits,  "I  do  not  know  a  single 
reference  of  the  kind." 

3.  The  manner  in  which  John,  in  Matt. 
3:  11,  speaks  of  his  baptism  in  comparison 
with  the  Saviour's  baptism  of  the  Spirit, 
is  such  as  to  discountenance  the  idea  of 
immersion.  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with 
water ;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire."  He  uses  precisely 
the  same  phraseology  with  regard  to  his  own 
baptism  that  he  uses  respecting  the  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  uni- 
formly spoken  of  as  being  done  by  the  pour- 
ing out,  shedding  forth  and  falling  of  the 
baptismal  element  upon  the  subject.  The 
inference  therefore  is  legitimate  and  strong, 
that  the  mode  of  action  was  the  same  in 
John's  baptism.  The  very  word  with  shows 
that  he  applied  the  water  to  the  subject,  and 
not  the  subject  to  the  water. 


233 

But  Dr.  Fuller  very  learnedly  tells  us 
that  in  the  original  of  this  passage  the  word 
translated  luith  is  en,  and  means  in,  "in 
Water,"  "  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  "in  fire."  But 
such  a  criticism  is  simply  ridiculous.  All 
the  lexicographers  tell  us  that  en,  with  a 
substantive  signifying  the  instrument  or 
cause,  always  means  with  and  nothing  else. 
Dr.  Campbell  agrees  that  it  means  roilJi, 
Even  Mr.  Carson,  whose  authority  Dr.  Ful- 
ler cannot  feel  himself  very  free  to  set  aside, 
says,  '-'en  may  be  translated  with."  "It 
signifies  with  in  classical  Greek,  as  well  as 
in  the  Septuagint  or  New  Testament.  It  is 
also  as  freely  used  with  this  verb  (baptizo) 
in  the  heathen  authors  as  in  the  Scriptures. 
To  convince  any  one  of  this  it  is  necessary 
only  to  look  over  the  Examples  which  I  have 
produced,  both  with  respect  to  bap/o  and 
baptizo ;"  Carson  on  Bap.,  pp.  122,  132. 
And  if  Dr.  Fuller's  criticism  is  to  stand,  then 
we  must  read  that  the  servant  in  Matthew 
traded  in  his  talents,  not  ivilli  them  ;  that 
Christ  cast  out  devils  in  the  finger  of  God, 
not  with  the  finger  of  God  ;   that  Paul  pro- 


234 

posed  to  visit  Corinth  in  a  rod,  not  with  a 
rod ;  that  the  Lord  shall  descend  from  heav- 
en in  the  trump,  not  with  the  trump  ;  and 
that  the  man-child  in  the  Apocalypse  is  to 
rule  all  nations  in  a  rod  of  iron,  not  with  a 
rod  of  iron  ! 

And  if  we  are  asked  why  we  render  en 
hudati,  with  water,  and  en  to  Jordan?,  at  the 
Jordan  ?  our  answer  is  ready.  In  the  first 
instance  en  is  joined  with  a  substantive  sig- 
nifying means  or  cause,  in  the  other  with 
one  denoting  place.  We  read,  "  My  servant 
lieth  at  home  sick,''  not  in  home ;  God  set 
Jesus  u  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heaven- 
ly places,"  not  in  his  own  right  hand  ;  Christ 
accomplished  his  decease  "at  Jerusalem," 
not  in  Jerusalem,  for  he  "  suffered  without 
the  gate ;"  John  le*aned  on  the  Saviour's 
breast  "  at  supper,"  not  in  supper;  Paul  in 
his  voyage  "  arrived  at  Samos  and  tarried  at 
Trogylliuro,"  certainly  not  in  Trogyllium, 
for  how  could  a  vessel  anchor  in  a  promon 
tory  ?  Indeed  Matthiae  observes  that  en  is 
used  with  names  of  places  when  proximity 
alone  is  implied.     We   are  therefore  fully 


£35 

authorized  to  say  that  John  baptized  Wltfl 
water,  at  the  Jordan  ;  a  phraseology  which 
leaves  no  room  for  the  inference  that  he  im- 
mersed. 

4.   It  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  the  early 
Christians  have  represented  John  as  baptiz- 
ing by  affusion.     We  now  have  before  us  a 
copy  of  a  representation   in    Mosaic  of  the 
baptism  of  Christ,  preserved  in   the  church 
in  Cosmedin,  at  Pvavenna,  which  was  erected 
in  the  year  401.     It   presents  the  Saviour 
standing  in  the  margin  of  the  Jordan,  par- 
tially in  the  water,  and  John  on  a  rock,  with 
a  shell   in   his  hand,  pouring  water  on  the 
Redeemer's  head.     We  have  before   us   an^ 
other,  from  the  church  on  the  Via  Ostiensis, 
at  Rome.     The  picture  itself  is  on  a  plate 
of  brass,  partly  engraved  and   partly  in  re- 
lief.    The  door  to  which  it  is  affixed  bears 
date  1070  ;  but  the  plate  is  much  older  than 
the  door,  and  from  the  inscriptions  in  Greek, 
is   manifestly  of  Greek  origin  and  agreed  to 
be  of  very  ancient  workmanship.     In  this 
picture  Christ   is  not  even  in  the  water,  but 
standing  near  the   stream,  whilst  John  with 
a  shell  is  pouring  water  on  his  head,    Form= 


236 

trig  the  centre-piece  of  the  dome  of  a  baptist- 
ery at  Ravenna,  which  was  built  and  dec- 
orated  in  the  year  454,  we  have  another 
representation  of  the  baptism  of  Christ.  As 
in  the  one  first  named,  he  is  standing  par- 
tially  in  the  water,  and  John,  from  a  rock 
above,  is  pouring  out  water  on  his  head.  Of 
the  genuineness  and  antiquity  of  these  pic- 
tures there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt. 
And  if  those  who  made  them  and  assigned 
them  their  places,  (though  believed  ordina- 
rily to  have  performed  their  own  baptisms 
by  immersion,)  entertained  it  as  their  fixed 
belief,  at  this  early  period,  that  John  bap- 
tized by  affusion,  are  we  not  justified  in 
presuming  that  he  really  did  baptize  some- 
thing after  the  mode  which  they  have  repre- 
sented in  his  baptism  of  Christ  ? 

But  Dr.  Fuller  argues  that  this  cannot  be, 
because  the  record  states  that  "  Jesus,  when 
he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of 
(apo)  the  water."  How  could  he  have 
come  "out  of  the  water"  unless  he  had  been 
in  it  ?  But  even  if  he  had  been  in  it,  that 
does  not  prove  that  he  was  under  it.  The 
young  man  in  Tobit  was  in  the  river,  but 


237 

not  under  the  water.  Dr.  Fuller  often  goes 
into  the  water  and  comes  out  of  it  without 
being  under  it.  This  itself  would  be  a  suffi- 
cient answer  to  the  objection,  though  we  are 
not  necessitated  to  rest  upon  it.  Dr.  Fuller 
certainly  will  not  contend  that  apo  ordinarily 
means  out  of,  much  less  from  under.  His 
master,  of  Tubbermore,  says,  "  The  proper 
translation  of  apo  is  from,  and  not  out  of.  I 
deny  that  it  ever  signifies  out  of  ;"  Carson  on 
Bapt.,  pp.  126,  337.  Jesus  therefore  only 
went  up  from  the  water,  not  out  of  it.  Nay, 
more,  if  apo  never  means  out  of,  the  demon- 
stration is  irresistible  that  John's  baptism 
was  by  affusion,  and  not  by  immersion  ;  for 
if  Jesus  did  not  come  out  of  the  water,  he 
was  not  even  in  it,  much  less  under  it. 

Is  it  not  utterly  unwarrantable  then  for 
any  man  to  assert  that  the  baptisms  of  John 
were  total  immersions?  And  if  John's  bap- 
tisms in  the  vicinity  of  the  river  were  not  im- 
mersions, the  Scriptures  speak  of  no  other 
baptisms  where  it  would  be  less  than  in- 
sanity to  pretend  to  argue  immersion  from 
the  places  at  which  they  were  performed. 
21 


938 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Prepositions  eis  and  ek — Allusions  to  Bap' 
tism — Passage  of  the  Red  Sea — Typical 
Baptism  of  Noah  in  the  Ark — Burial  in 
Christ's  death. 

We  come  now  to  notice  Dr.  Fuller's  third 
and  fifth  arguments.  The  fourth  we  are  at 
a  loss  to  comprehend.  He  says,  "  It  is  based 
upon  the  act  performed  in  baptizing"  What 
act?  His  theory  admits  no  act  but  immer- 
sion. And  to  assert  that  immersion  is  im- 
mersion, and  that  therefore  baptism  is  im- 
mersion, is  a  method  of  argumentation  so  far 
above  our  capacity  that  we  leave  it  with  the 
ex-lawyer  from  whom  it  comes,  to  be  ad- 
mired  by  those  of  his  friends  who  may  be 
able  to  sound  its  mysterious  depths.  It  far 
transcends  all  our  science.  We  take  his 
third  and  fifth  arguments  together,  because, 
though  introduced  with  imposing  pomp,  they 
both  turn  upon  the  meaning  of  two  little 
Greek  prepositions,  eis  and  ek.     He  tells  us 


239 

that  eis  means  info,  and  ek,  out  of;  that  Phil- 
ip and  the  Eunuch  "  went  down  both  (eis) 
into  the  water"  and  came  up  "  (ek)  out  of 
the  water;"  and  that  therefore  the  Eunuch 
must  have  been  immersed. 

Now  if  we  were  even  to  admit  his  prem- 
ises, his  conclusion  would  not  follow.  We 
have  often  gone  into  the  water,  and  as  often 
come  out  of  the  water,  without  having  been 
immersed.  Indeed  the  eis  and  the  ek  apply 
here  as  well  to  Philip  as  to  the  Eunuch  ; 
and  if  eis  and  ek  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
the  Eunuch  went  under  the  water,  they  must 
prove  that  Philip  also  went  under  the  water, 
which  would  be  a  little  more  than  agreeable 
either  to  Dr.  Fuller's  theory  or  practice. 
But  we  dispute  that  eis  and  ek  are  limited  to 
the  significations  he  has  assigned  to  them. 
If  eis  always  means  into,  then  we  must  read, 
"The  men  of  Nineveh  repented  into  the 
preaching  of  Jonas,"  not  at  the  preaching; 
Jesus  went  through  the  cities  and  villages 
"journeying  in  Jerusalem,"  not  towards  Je- 
rusalem ;  the  healed  demoniac  of  Gadara  was 
sent  into  his  friends,  not  to  his  friends ;  Mary 


240 

went  "  into  the  grave  to  weep,5'  not  unto  the 
grave ;  the  women,  at  the  apparition  of  an- 
gels, "  bowed  down  their  faces  into  the 
earth,"  not  to  the  earth  ;  Mary  "  fell  down 
into  Jesus'  feet,"  not  at  his  feet ;  Jesus  came 
into  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  not  "  to  the 
grave ;"  Mary  Magdalene  came  into  the 
sepulchre,  not  "unto  the  sepulchre;"  Paul's 
journey  from  Puteoli  was  into  Rome,  not 
"  toward  Rome ;"  Abraham  staggered  not 
into  the  promises  of  God,  not  "  he  staggered 
not  at  the  promises  of  God  ;"  "  Let  us  go 
into  Jordan,  and  take  thence  every  man  a 
beam,  and  let  us  make  us  a  place  there 
where  we  may  dwell,"  not  let  us  go  unto 
Jordan.  But  why  multiply  examples  ?  Mr. 
Carson  says,  "  I  am  far  from  denying  that 
eis  sometimes  signifies  unto.  .  It  applies 
when  the  thing  in  motion  enters  within  the 
object  to  which  it  refers.  There  are  in- 
stances, however,  in  which  the  motion  ends 
at  the  object;"  p.  131.  It  is  utterly  futile 
therefore  for  Baptists  to  attempt  to  argue  im- 
mersion from  this  word. 
#  But  "  ek,  with  a  verb  of  motion,  always 


241 

signifies  out  of  "  So  says  Dr.  Fuller;  but 
we  have  ere  this  learned  that  his  announce- 
ments in  connection  with  this  subject  are 
neither  wonderful  for  truth  nor  final  in  au- 
thority. In  John  13  :  4,  it  is  said  of  Jesus, 
*k  He  riseth  up  from  supper."  Does  this 
mean  out  of  supper?  In  Acts  12:  7,  it  is 
said  of  the  imprisoned  Peter,  "  His  chains 
fell  off  from  his  hands."  Does  this  mean 
that  the  chains  fell  out  of  his  hands  ?  In 
John  20  :  1,  Mary  saw  "the  stone  taken 
from  the  sepulchre."  Does  this  mean  out  of 
the  sepulchre  ?  How  can  Dr.  Fuller  take 
out  of  a  thing  what  never  was  in  it  ?  See 
Matt.  27:  60,  and  Mark  15:  46.  In  Luke 
12 :  36,  the  Saviour  speaks  of  returning 
from  the  wedding.  Did  he  mean  out  of  the 
wedding?  The  same  ek  is  used  to  signify 
the  drawing  of  a  line  from  a  mathematical 
point,  as  "from  the  pole  of  a  circle."  Will 
common  sense  tolerate  the  idea  of  getting 
into  or  coming  out  of  a  mathematical  point? 
The  same  word  is  used  in  the  sentence 
where  the  artist  is  said  to  "  form  men  from 
the  extremity  of  the  foot."  Is  there  any 
21* 


242 

such  thing  as  forming  men  out  of  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  foot?  In  all  these  instances 
ek  is  joined  with  verbs  of  motion,  and  yet  it 
will  receive  only  the  sense  of  apo,  from. 
Where  then  is  Dr.  Fuller's  assertion  ?  And 
how  can  ek,  in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Eunuch,  prove  that  els  there  means  any 
thing  more  than  unto ;  or  that  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  did  not  merely  come  from  the 
water  and  not  out  of  hi 

Add  now  but  two  facts,  and  the  necessity 
for  rendering  eis  and  ek  unto  and  from  in  this 
account,  or  at  least  of  so  interpreting  them 
as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  immersion,  will 
distinctly  appear.  First,  the  passage  which 
Philip  expounded,  the  exposition  of  which 
led  the  Eunuch  to  ask  to  be  baptized,  con- 
tains a  Messianic  prophecy  which  some  of 
the  fathers  understood  of  baptism,  and  which 
Philip  doubtless  so  interpreted  at  the  time. 
Else  how  could  the  Eunuch  have  been  made 
to  understand  any  thing  about  baptism? 
And  in  that  veiy  prediction  mode  is  indi- 
cated. "So  shall  he  (the  Messiah)  sprin- 
kle many  nations."     And   would  it  not  be 


243 

unreasonably  violent  to  suppose  that  the 
preacher  did  contrary  to  the  very  text  before 
him  ?  But  secondly,  if  any  reliance  is  to  be 
placed  in  the  accounts  of  Eusebius  and  Je- 
rome, sustained  as  they  have  been  by  mod- 
ern researches  and  a  general  tradition  that 
reaches  back  to  the  apostles'  times,  there 
was  not  water  enough  there  to  immerse  the 
Eunuch  in.  It  was  not  a  river  or  a  pool,  but 
a  small  spring  in  a  desert  region,  the  waters 
of  which  were  swallowed  up  again  by  the 
very  soil  from  which  they  proceeded.  And 
to  persist  in  arguing  for  immersion  on  the 
precarious  ground  of  two  indefinite  little 
prepositions,  where  it  is  almost,  certain  that 
no  immersion  could  by  any  means  have 
taken  place,  is  to  exalt  the  empire  of  zeal 
over  reason,  truth  and  common  sense.  And 
though  Dr.  Fuller  may  continue  to  denounce 
us  as  "  hopeless  victims  of  hydrophobia,"  is 
it  not  better  to  be  rationally  hydrophobic  than 
insanely  aquatic? 

Dr.  Fuller's  next  resort  is  to  what  he  calls 
"allusions  to  baptism."  Some  of  the  pas- 
sages quoted   under  this  head  we  have  al- 


244 

ready  disposed  of,  and  we  deem  it  unimport- 
ant to  dwell  long  on  the  rest.  The  first 
we  notice  is  where  Paul  speaks  of  the  fath- 
ers as  "  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea."  We  deny  that  there  was 
any  immersion  in  this  case.  Indeed  if  bap- 
tism is  immersion,  then  the  Egyptians  were 
baptized  and  not  the  Israelites,  and  the  sa- 
cred record  stands  contradicted.  The  chil- 
dren of  Israel  passed  through  the  sea  "upon 
dry  ground."  They  were  neither  dipped  in 
the  cloud  nor  plunged  in  the  water.  And  if 
Paul  had  designed  by  this  language  to  set 
forth  the  outward  mode  of  administering 
Christian  baptism,  upon  Dr.  Fuller's  theory, 
he  certainly  selected  the  wrong  parties  for 
his  examples  ;  for  the  hosts  of  Pharaoh  really 
were  immersed,  which  is  not  true  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  Moses.  Moreover,  Christian  bap- 
tism demands  an  administrator;  but  there 
was  none  in  the  case  referred  to.  Christian 
baptism  requires  the  element  to  be  brought 
in  contact  with  the  subject ;  but  the  Israelites 
were  not  touched  by  wave  or  cloud.  And 
so  far  as  baptism  consists  of  immersion,  we 


245 

are  forced  to  conclude  that  the  passage  of 
the  Red  Sea  was  no  baptism.  That  passage 
was  a  figure  of  Christian  baptism  in  its  im- 
port— in  its  moral,  practical  and  theological 
significance,  and  not  in  the  mode  of  its  per- 
formance. Augustine  calls  it  a  salvation  by 
water,  and  for  that  reason  it  is  called  a  bap- 
tism. It  was  a  glorious  deliverance  of  the 
ancient  Israelites  from  the  hands  of  their 
enemies ;  a  solemn  separation  between  them 
and  their  heathen  associations  ;  a  mysterious 
consecration  of  God's  own  chosen  to  his  ex- 
clusive service  ;  a  miraculous  regeneration* 
in  which  a  new  and  holy  nation  was  born  ; 
an  impressive  seal  of  God's  presence  and 
covenant  with  his  people.  All  these  are 
things  to  be  said  of  the  holy  sacrament  of 
Christian  baptism  now ;  and  it  is  in  these 
respects,  and  in  these  alone,  that  the  passage 
through  the  Red  Sea  is  called  a  baptism.  It 
no  more  proves  that  we  must  be  immersed 
in  order  to  be  baptized  than  it  proves  that 
we  must  be  sprinkled  with  mists  of  spray, 
such  as  doubtless  might  have  been  seen  fall- 
ing into  that  wonderful  pathway  from  the 
boisterous  surges  above. 


246 

Dr.  Fuller's  next  reference  is  to  1  Peter 
3  :  20, 21,  where  the  apostle  speaks  of  "  The 
ark  .  .  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls, 
were  saved  by  water,  the  figure  according 
to  which  baptism  dolh  now  save  us."  But 
where  is  the  immersion  in  this  case  ?  Noah 
and  those  saved  with  him  were  not  im- 
mersed. By  that  flood  they  were  purified 
from  the  wicked  and  consecrated  as  the  new 
seed  to  re-populate  the  earth  ;  but  they  rode 
above  it  unharmed  by  the  shoreless  waves 
which  overwhelmed  and  drowned  all  else  of 
human  kind.  They  alone  of  all  men  were 
not  immersed  ;  and  to  make  that  gracious 
exemption  a  figure  of  immersion,  is  figuring 
at  a  premium!  The  likeness  which  Peter 
finds  in  the  ark  in  which  Noah  was  saved 
we  interpret  of  the  spiritual  significance  of 
bapiism,  of  the  purification  of  the  soul  by 
God's  Spirit,  and  its  salvation  from  the  judg- 
ments which  shall  overwhelm  the  wicked. 
But  as  Dr.  Fuller  has  introduced  it  as  proof 
of  mode,  he  is  bound  by  the  logical  conse- 
quences of  his  own  premises.  And  who 
does  not  see  that  if  the  figure  of  which  the 


9A1 

apostle  speaks  refers  to  mode,  the  case  of 
Noah  absolutely  excludes  immersion  and  es- 
tablishes affusion  as  the  only  legitimate  way  ? 
The  rains  fell  upon  the  ark  from  above,  but 
the  waves  never  overflowed  it  from  below. 
Dr.  Fuller  refers  us  next  to  Rom.  6  :  3, 
5,  and  Col.  2:12.  In  these  words  we  have 
a  sublime  description  of  the  wonderful  effi- 
cacy of  the  gospel  upon  the  inner  being  of 
believers,  and  of  a  condition  of  things  re- 
sulting from  their  oneness  with  Christ  which 
amounts  to  an  actual  reproduction  of  his 
crucifixion,  death,  burial  and  resurrection  in 
the  experiences  of  their  hearts.  But  sub- 
lime and  spiritual  as  these  Scriptures  are, 
the  attempt  has  been  made  to  harness  them 
down  as  the  mere  dray  horses  to  drag  out  of 
the  mire  a  hopeless  sectarian  cause.  Dr. 
Fuller  so  robs  them  of  their  literal  force  and 
meaning  as  to  present  them  as  the  offspring 
of  a  luxuriant  poetic  imagination,  employed 
upon  remote  resemblances  of  a  point  of  ex- 
ternal ceremony — -as  the  mere  intellectual 
play  of  a  fancy  fond  of  tracing  faint  analo- 
gies and  of  amusing  itself  with  alliterations. 


248 

According  to  our  estimate  -of  the  type  of 
Paul's  mind,  and  of  the  connection  and  im- 
port of  these  passages,  they  are  the  words  of 
a  man  6f  God  laboring  to  express  some  of 
the  profoundest  mysteries  of  the  transform- 
ing power  of  the  Saviour's  grace.  The 
baptism  of  which  he  speaks  is  neither  the 
baptism  of  immersion  or  affusion,  or  of  any 
other  mode  of  performing  an  external  rite, 
but  the  inner  and  miraculous  'purification  of 
man's  whole  moral  nature  by  incorporation 
with  Jesus  Christ.  The  crucifixion,  death, 
burial  and  resurrection  to  which  he  alludes, 
so  far  from  being  mere  images  of  immersion 
and  emersion,  are  literal  terms,  denoting 
realities,  and  pointing,  not  to  a  figurative, 
but  to  an  actual  death  of  every  believer  to 
his  sins  and  his  real  resurrection  to  newness 
of  life.  The  cross  here  is  not  the  cross  of 
going  under  the  water,  but  the  inward  cru- 
cifixion of  the  old  man  with  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ.  The  parallel  in  the  apostle's 
mind  is  not  between  the  outward  mode  of 
external  baptism  and  the  death,  burial  and 
resurrection   of  the   Saviour,    but   between 


249 

these  particulars  of  his  passion  and  the  in- 
ward spiritual  experiences  of  those  who  truly 
are  his.  His  object  is  to  show,  not  that 
Christians  ought  to  walk  in  newness  of  life 
because  figuratively  raised  from  a  watery 
grave  in  an  outward  ceremony,  but  that 
justification  by  faith,  so  far  from  ministering 
to  licentiousness,  carries  with  it  and  effects 
in  the  soul  an  extinction  of  man's  licentious 
and  sinful  being,  and  sets  up  in  its  place  a 
new  and  holy  creature ;  that  it  actually 
transfers  to  the  believer's  heart  the  whole 
history  of  the  Saviour's  passion,  and  contin- 
ues it  there  as  a  thing  now  transpiring  in  the 
hidden  experiences  of  every  true  disciple. 
Dr.  Fuller's  interpretation  takes  in  about  as 
much  of  the  real  sublimity  of  these  pas- 
sages as  the  stupid  traveler  at  Rome  took 
in  of  the  grandeur  of  the  Coliseum  by  ex- 
amining a  detached  piece  of  mortar  from  its 
walls. 

But   if  we  were  even  to  admit  the  Baptist 

interpretation,  and  agree  that  Paul  is  here 

tracing  a  comparison  between  the  mode  of 

baptism  and  the   crucifixion,   death,  burial 

22 


250 

and  resurrection  of  Christ,  then  the  apostle 
comes  before  us  in  the  absurd  position  of 
attempting  to  run  an  analogy  between  things 
in  no  way  analogous.  There  is  no  mode  of 
baptism  of  which  we  have  ever  heard  which 
takes  in,  even  in  remotest  resemblance,  the 
various  facts  of  this  part  of  the  Saviour's 
history,  Take  the  most  favorable  particu- 
lars, the  burial  and  resurrection.  What 
resemblance  is  there  between  water,  the 
softest  and  most  yielding  of  visible  substan- 
ces, and  a  solid  rock,  the  very  image  of 
durability  ?  What  likeness  between  dipping 
a  man  in  a  fluid  and  depositing  a  dead  body 
in  a  horizontal  excavation  in  the  breast  of  a 
declivity  ?  What  similarity  between  the 
wading  of  a  living  man  into  a  stream  or 
cistern  and  the  bearing  of  a  corpse  to  its 
final  resting  place  ?  What  analogy  between 
the  hasty  lifting  up  of  a  strangling  subject 
from  a  plunge  in  the  water  and  the  triumph- 
ant resurrection  of  the  re-animated  Jesus  in 
the  strength  of  his  own  omnipotence  ?  What 
similitude  between  the  glorified  body  of  the 
rising  Saviour  and  the  drowned  and  dripping 


251 

aspect  of  the  Baptist  subject  coming  up  from 
his  immersion  ?  Could  any  thing  be  more 
unlike  than  Christ,  leaving  his  grave-clothes 
in  his  sepulchre  of  rock  and  coming  forth 
unaided  in  his  incorruptible  body,  and  a  man 
lifted  hastily  from  the  water,  the  same  cloth- 
ing sticking  sadly  to  him  and  he  looking  a 
great  deal  worse  than  before  his  immersion? 
Is  it  not  amazing  that  any  human  mind  could 
have  imagined  that  such  a  "  sorry  sight " 
bore  any  resemblance  to  the  majestic  and 
glorious  resurrection  of  our  blessed  Lord  ? 
See  Dr.  Webster's  Wafer  Baptism  Explain- 
ed, pp.  19,  32.  No  wonder  that  Dr.  Fuller 
himself  is  so  embarrassed  with  these  dis- 
crepancies as  to  admit  for  once  that  "  The 
manner  is  nothing  !"  p.  74.  Had  he  made 
this  admission  from  the  start,  and  kept  him- 
self to  it,  he  would  have  relieved  his  book  of 
much  false  criticism  and  unsound  reasoning, 
and  spared  himself  the  pain  of  pronouncing 
sentence  of  excommunication  upon  millions 
of  God's  own  accepted  sons  and  daughters. 
But  again,  what  the  apostle  in  verse  :3  and 
4  calls  baptism  into  Christ,  into  his  death, 


252 

and  burial  (not  in  baptism  but)  into  death  by 
baptism,  in  verse  5  he  calls  planting  in  the 
likeness  of  Christ's  death.  But  what  resem- 
blance is  there  between  immersion  and 
Christ's  death,  or  between  immersion  and 
planting  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death? 
Was  he  put  to  death  by  drowning  ?  He  was 
not  thrust  down  in  the  water,  but  lifted  up 
upon  the  cross.  He  did  not  die  by  being 
gently  sunk  into  a  yielding  fluid,  but  by  be- 
ing  violently  nailed  upon  an  unyielding 
stake.  Neither  is  immersion  in  water  a 
representation  of  the  idea  of  pla?iting.  What 
similitude  is  there  between  the  dripping, 
soiled,  uncomfortable  looking  man,  lifted  by 
another  from  the  troubled  water,  and  the 
beautiful  young  plant,  painted  by  the  rays 
and  freshened  by  the  showers  of  heaven, 
rising  imperceptibly  and  noiselessly  by  the 
power  of  an  inward  life  and  vigor?  If 
burial  into  Christ's  death  by  baptism  then  is 
the  same  as  planting  in  the  likeness  of 
Christ's  death. — as  the  setting  of  the  scion  of 
the  new  spiritual  man  by  the  crucifixion  of 
the  old, — is  it  not  as  clear  as  language  can 


253 

make  it,  that  the  idea  of  immersion  is  en- 
tirely excluded  ? 

Once  more,  the  burial  spoken  of  in  these 
passages  is  not  a  burial  in  baptism,  but  a 
burial  in  Christ's  death.  Will  language 
tolerate  the  idea  of  immersion  in  the  death 
of  another?  Was  Christ's  crucifixion  a 
fluid  ?  There  is  purification  in  Christ's 
death;  and  by  that  purification  the  old  man 
with  his  vestment  of  vices  is  buried  toith 
Christ,  never  to  be  raised  again.  But  im- 
mersion in  Christ's  death,  and  that  in  the 
manner  or  "likeness"  of  that  death,  i.  e.,  in 
a  way  resembling  crucifixion,  is  an  associa- 
tion of  incoherencies  that  may  be  compre- 
hensible to  a  Carolina  lawyer,  but  surely 
not  to  common  sense. 

Let  us  not  be  carried  away  then,  as  too 
many  have  been,  by  the  mere  sound  of  a 
word.  The  burial  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks  is  not  a  mere  figurative,  but  a  literal 
and  real  burial,  an  actual  extinction  of  the 
carnal  mind  and  an  actual  abstraction  and 
concealment  of  it  in  the  deep  abyss  of  eter- 
nal sepulture.  There  is  not  one  of  all  these 
22* 


254 

allusions  that  sustains  the  Baptist  theory — 
no  just  laws  of  exegesis  will  permit  them  to 
be  thus  tied  down  to  the  signification  of  mere 
mode.  They  prove  that  Baptism  is  a  sanctU 
fication,  but  they  do  not  prove  that  it  is  im- 
mersion, or  that  immersion  has  any  thing  to 
do  with  it. 


255 


CHAPTER  XV. 

Practice  of  the  Greek  Church — Practice  of 
the  Patristic  Church — A  case  for  Baptists 
to  solve. 

It  is  sometimes  thought  fhat  the  practice 
of  the  so-called  Greek  church  ought  to  be 
regarded  as  proof  that  baptism  is  immersion. 
Dr.  Fuller  seems  to  hold  such  an  opinion. 
But  this  is  a  mere  effigy.  Modern  Greek 
is  about  as  much  like  classic  Greek  as  Ital- 
ian is  like  classic  Latin.  Moreover,  Dey- 
lingius,  Peters,  Kurtz  and  others  are  wit- 
nesses, that  the  Greek  Church  practices 
affusion  after  immersion,  and  regards  it  as 
an  essential  part  of  the  ordinance.  They 
also  blow  upon  the  candidate,  and  pour  oil 
upon  him,  and  mark  him  with  the  sign  of 
the  cross  !  If  then  the  modern  Greeks  are  to 
decide  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo  by 
their  mode  of  baptizing,  we  dare  by  no  means 
limit  it  to  immersion,  but  must  assign  it  a 
latitude  which  will  take  in  pouring,  blowing 


256 

and  marking  with  the  cross  !  Nor  is  it  to  be 
forgotten  that  the  Greek  Church  insists  upon 
the  duty  of  baptizing  infants;  and  if  its 
practice  is  authoritative,  that  practice  fixes 
the  proper  subjects  as  well  as  the  proper 
mode  of  baptism.  We  protest  against  that 
sort  of  logic  by  which  Baptists  would  hold 
us  bound  by  the  practice  of  the  Greek 
church  in*  one  point,  while  they  themselves 
denounce  and  condemn  that  practice  in 
other  points.  And  when  we  baptize  by 
affusion,  omitting  immersion  and  other  un- 
necessary and  objectionable  things,  we  are 
not  half  so  heretical  under  Dr.  Fuller's 
argument  as  he  himself  for  refusing  to  bap- 
tize infants ;  for  whilst  it  would  leave  us 
with  an  imperfect  baptism,  it  leaves  him 
still  further  derelict  with  regard  to  a  solemn 
command  of  God. 

But  as  Dr.  Fuller  has  referred  to  the 
Greek  Church,  we  will  refer  to  another 
Christian  society,  equally  if  not  more  re- 
mote in  antiquity,  and  so  far  removed  from 
the  common  world  as  to  have  felt  little  of 
the  conflicts  of  opinion  or  of  the  operations 


257 

of  ambition,  which  have  made  such  sad 
havoc  with  larger  communities  and  inter- 
ests  ;  to  a  community  of  whom  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say,  that  they  have  retained  the 
practices  derived  from  their  forefathers  much 
more  punctiliously  than  the  perturbed  nations 
of  Christendom  at  large.  We  refer  to  the 
Syrian  Christians  in  India.  Cosmas  Indico- 
pleustes  found  them  there  in  A.  D.  540  ;  a 
certain  Theophilus  in  356,  and  mention  is 
made  of  one  of  their  bishops  as  early  as  180. 
Good  authority  says  that  they  were  first 
converted  by  the  personal  labors  of  some  of 
the  apostles,  in  the  very  region  which  they 
still  inhabit.  Mr.  Newell,  an  American 
missionary,  visited  them  in  1814.  He  says, 
"  I  made  particular  inquiry  respecting  the 
mode  of  baptism.  I  found  it  it'cis  affusion. 
Respecting  the  subjects  of  baptism  I  made  no 
inquiry,  as  I  supposed  it  was  a  matter  of 
notoriety  that  the  Syrians  are  Pedo-baptists. 
Br.  Hall,  who  conversed  with  those  same 
priests  when  he  was  at  Cochin,  understood 
that  children  were  baptized.''  If  this  does 
not  effectually  set  aside  Dr.  Fuller's  argu- 


258 

ment  from  the  practice  of  the  Greeks,  there 
is  no  force  in  facts. 

We  come  now  to  notice  our  author's  last 
argument.  It  is  drawn  from  what  he  calls 
the  history  of  baptism.  The  substance  of  it 
is  to  this  effect,  that  from  the  time  of 
John  and  Christ  to  the  third  century  bap- 
tism was  invariably  administered  by  the 
total  immersion  of  the  candidate,  and  that 
the  present  mode  of  administering  this  ordi- 
nance is  a  superstitious  contrivance  of  a 
degenerate  and  corrupt  theology.  Shades 
of  our  fathers  !  is  this  history  ?  History  is 
fact;  but  these  assertions  are  not  fact.  By 
taking  the  exact  reverse  of  them  we  will 
be  much  nearer  to  the  truth.  We  deny  that 
immersion  was  the  common  mode  of  baptism 
in  the  apostolic  period  of  the  Church.  The 
most  patient  and  laborious  and  impartial 
examination  of  every  legitimate  source  of 
argument  has  left  us  without  one  particle  of 
proof  that  the  apostolic  baptisms  were  im- 
mersions. We  deny  that  John's  baptisms 
were  immersions.  We  deny  that  the  3,000 
at  Pentecost  were  immersed.     We  deny  that 


259 

Paul,  Cornelius,  Lydia,  the  Jailor,  or  the 
Eunuch  were  baptized  by  immersion.  We 
deny  that  there  is  a  particle  of* evidence  that 
the  apostles  ordinarily,  if  ever,  baptized  by 
total  immersion.  For  though  the  inspired 
writers  speak  of  baptism  directly  or  indi- 
rectly on  almost  every  page  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  under  a  great  variety  of  as- 
pects, they  have  not  employed  a  single  term, 
or  stated  a  single  fact,  or  used  a  single 
figure  of  speech,  which  evinces  that  they 
either  preferred  or  practiced  submersion  in 
any  case;  but  on  the  other  hand,  they  have 
used  language  and  related  occurrences 
which  can  by  no  possibility  be  reconciled 
with  immersion.  Indeed  Coleman  most  posi- 
tively asserts  that  "the  rite  of  immersion  is 
an  unauthorized  assumption,  in  direct  con- 
flict with  the  teachings,  the  spirit,  and  the  ex- 
ample of  Christ  and  his  apostles." — Ancient 
Christianity,  p.  367. 

Dr.  Fuller's  "History"  then  stands  con- 
tradicted in  its  most  vital  part.  Its  very  life 
blood  is  wanting.  For  if  the  inspired  apos- 
tles baptized  in  any  manner  without  totally 


260 

immersing  the  candidate,  no  subsequent 
practice,  however  general  or  tenaciously 
contended  for,  can  foist  immersion  upon  us 
as  an  injunction  of  God  or  as  a  thing  of 
binding  obligation. 

Dr.  Fuller  quotes  about  thirty  authorities 
to  prove  that  immersion  was  generally  prac- 
ticed at  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  the 
Church.  Some  of  these  references  are  very 
much  in  the  same  predicament  with  his  quo- 
tation from  the  fifth  book  of  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes, as  contained  in  the  first  and  second 
editions  of  his  work.  But  we  are  free  to 
admit,  and  so  far  as  we  know,  none  of  the 
writers  on  our  side  of  this  controversy  have 
ever  refused  to  admit,  that  baptizing  by 
immersion  was  generally  prevalent  during 
the  last  of  the  second,  the  third  and  the 
fourth  centuries.  Dr.  Fuller's  authorities 
go  no  farther  than  this  admission.  Not  one 
of  them  says  that  immersion  was  specifically 
appointed  by  the  Lord,  or  that  the  Christians 
of  the  periods  referred  to  ever  regarded  im- 
mersion as  the  only  mode  of  baptism  author- 
ized by  Christ  and  his  apostles.     A?kIfowr- 


261 

teen  of  these  very  authors,  and  in  the  very 
passages  quoted,  tell  us  expressly  that  there 

WERE  ALWAYS  EXCEPTIONS    TO    THE    GENERAL 

practice,  and  that  there  never  was  a  time 
when  persons  were  not  otherwise  baptized  than 
by  immersion.  Not  one  of  them  speaks  of 
immersion  as  essential  to  the  validity  of 
baptism,  or  says  that  those  of  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries,  who  ordinarily  practiced 
immersion,  ever  regarded  it  as  indispensable 
to  the  integrity  of  this  sacrament.  And  Dr. 
Pond  (pp.  42-50)  has  proven  beyond  the 
power  of  successful  contradiction,  that  im- 
mersion was  never  considered  as  essential  to 
baptism  until  the  rise  of  the  "Baptist  fathers" 
— the  Anabaptists  of  Germany — in  the  pe- 
riod immediately  following  the  Reformation. 
Coleman,  who  has  made  so  many  conces- 
sions to  Baptists,  has  justly  said,  that' the 
administration  of  baptism  by  immersion  was 
the  first  departure  from  the  teaching  and  ex- 
ample of  the  apostles  on  this  subject;  that  it 
is  not  in  harmony  with  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation to  give  such  importance  to  merely  an 
outward  rite,  and  that  it  is  altogether  a  Jew- 
23 


262 

ish  rather  than  a  Christian  idea,  and  indi- 
cates an  origin  and  a  spirit  foreign  to  that  of 
the  ordinances  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 
(Ancient  Christianity  Exemplified,  p.  367.) 
Neither  is  it  difficult  to  account  for  this  early 
departure  from  apostolic  practice.  Chris- 
tianity began  in  the  warm  regions  of  the 
East,  and  in  the  midst  of  a  people  whose 
climate,  habits,  costume  and  mode  of  lite 
were  all  adapted  to  bathing ;  and  nothing 
could  have  been  more  natural  than  the  use 
of  the  bath  as  a  mode  of  religious  purifying 
on  occasions  otherwise  convenient.  This 
certainly  was  sufficient  to  begin  the  practice 
of  immersion  in  baptism.  This  practice  once 
introduced  soon  acquired  strength  from  one  of 
the  primitive  heathen  significations  of  the 
word  baptizo,  and  from  false  interpretations  of 
Rom.  b'  :  3,  4,  and  Col.  2:12.  In  addition 
to  this,  as  Dr.  Fuller  himself  remarks,  "  even 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles  we  find  corrup- 
tions insinuating  themselves;  and  very  soon 
after  the  time  of  the  apostles  all  manner  of 
innovations  and  abuses  began  to  creep  in;"  p. 
91.     Pre-eminent  among  these  abuses  was 


263 

that  superstition  from  which  Papacy  took  its 
origin,  the  undue  reverence  for  external  forms' 
And  amid  those  deep-rooted  tendencies  to 
formalism  and  superstition,  what  was  there 
to  avert  from  the  Church  a  surrender  of 
herself  to  what  fanaticism  and  superstition 
would  regard  as  the  largest  and  most  effec- 
tual mode  of  administering  an  ordinance  in 
which  so  much  was  supposed  to  be  involved, 
both  of  emblematical  import  and  of  sancti- 
fying power  ?  See  Beecher  on  Baptism, 
sec.  23. 

But  amid'  the  general  departure  from 
apostolic  example  which  characterized  the 
Church  in  the  third,  fourth  and  fifth  centu- 
ries, the  validity  of  baptism  performed  by 
affusion  alone  was  never  denied.  Clodovius, 
king  of  the  Franks,  was  baptized  by  affusion 
in  499.  Argilulfus,  the  king,  and  Theolin- 
da,  the  queen  of  the  Longobards.  were  bap- 
tized by  affusion  in  591.  Gennadius  of 
Marseilles  in  490  said  that  the  baptized  per- 
son is  either  sprinkled  or  immersed.  Con- 
stantine  the  Great  was  baptized  by  affusion 
in  337.     Cyprian,  who  suffered   martyrdom 


264 

in  258,  has  left  us  a  formal  discussion  upon 
the  propriety  of  baptizing  by  affusion,  in 
which  he  argues  that  baptisms  thus  per- 
formed are  valid,  perfect,  and  acceptable  to 
God.  See  his  69th  Epistle.  His  cotempo- 
rary,  St.  Lawrence,  baptized  Romanus,  a 
soldier,  with  a  pitcher  of  water,  and  one  Lu- 
cillus  by  pouring  water  on  his  head.  At  a 
period  still  earlier  Novatian,  a  converted 
heathen  philosopher,  was  baptized  by  affu- 
sion. The  writer  quoted  by  Eusebius,  from 
whom  we  have  the  account  of  the  transac- 
tion, does  not  hesitate  to  cail  it  a  baptism. 
Tertullian,  born  150,  speaks  of  the  "asper- 
sion of  water  "  in  connection  with  penitence 
and  baptism,  so  as  to  leave  us  to  infer  that 
baptizing  by  affusion  was  common  in  his 
day,  and  not  otherwise  esteemed  than  as  a 
valid  mode  of  administering  this  ordinance  ; 
Be  Penitent,  cap.  6.  In  the  catacomb  of 
Pontianus,  out  of  the  gate  Portese  at  Rome, 
an  ancient  baptistery,  which  antiquarians 
upon  clear  and  decisive  grounds  have  dated 
back  to  the  year  107,  teaches  the  same  doc- 
trine.    It  is  older  than  any  copy  of  the  Gos- 


265 

pels  now  in  existence,  but  it  speaks  nothing 
of  immersion.  On  the  left  is  a  nitch,  in  the 
rocky  side  where  the  administrator  stood, 
fronting  a  basin  formed  by  a  slight  excava- 
tion in  the  floor.  On  the  farthest  wall  is  a 
representation  of  the  baptism  of  Christ,  in 
which  the  water  is  being  poured  on  his  head. 
Such  a  picture,  in  such  a  place,  could  have 
been  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  instruct 
the  baptize rs  and  their  subjects  that  thus  was 
the  blessed  Saviour  baptized  and  that  thus 
baptism  was  legitimately  performed.  So 
that  the  primitive  practice  of  administering 
baptism  by  affusion  has  been  engraven  upon 
the  very  rock  itself.  And  Venema,  Salma- 
sius,  Eusebius,  Baronius,  Bingham,  Nean- 
der,  Winer,  Gieseler,  Coleman,  and  all  the 
best  authorities,  tell  us  that  in  the  case  of 
sickness,  or  when  water  was  not  easily  pro- 
cured, or  when  the  baptismal  font  was  too 
small,  or  when  other  considerations  of  con- 
venience or  climate  rendered  immersion 
difficult  or  improper,  the  patristic  church 
always  held  affusion  to  be  a  valid  mode  of 
baptism,  and  regarded  it  as  profanity  and  sin 
23* 


266 

to  re-baptize  any  who  had  received  this  or- 
dinance in  that  manner.  Cyprian  says,  "  If 
any  think  that  they  have  obtained  nothing, 
but  are  still  empty  and  void,  in  that  they  have 
only  been  a  fused  with  sanctifying  water,  they 
must  not  be  deceived,  and  so,  if  they  escape 
the  ills  of  their  sickness  and  recover,  be  re- 
baptized  ;  "  as  that  would  be  to  "  question 
the  verity  of  faith,  and  to  deny  baptism  its 
proper  majesty  and  sanctity."  It  is  true  that 
it  was  held  to  be  improper  for  such  as  first 
applied  for  baptism  in  the  extremity  of  sick- 
ness  afterwards  to  be  promoted  to  high  offi- 
cial positions;  but  not  because  the  ordinary 
mode  of  baptizing  clinics  was  esteemed  in 
any  way  imperfect,  as  the  Baptists  insinu- 
ate. We  have  the  express  testimony  of 
Cyprian  and  others  that  "  the  sprinkling  of 
water  has  like  force  with  washing  and  holds 
good"  and  that  it  neither  abridges  the  ordi- 
nance itself  nor  curtails  the  spiritual  bene- 
fits with  which  it  is  associated.  The  only 
reason  why  those  baptized  in  sickness  were 
debarred  from  official  honors  is  that  assigned 
by  Rufinus,  Bingham,  and  others,  that  the 


267 

postponement  of  baptism  to  such  an  hour  ar- 
gued a  great  want  of  spiritual  sensibility 
and  showed  an  absence  of  that  voluntary, 
cheerful  and  unconstrained  surrender  to 
Christ  which  ought  to  characterize  high  offi- 
cers  in  the  Church. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that  there 
arose  a  sect  in  the  fourth  century  called  the 
Eunomians,  which  embraced  men  as  distin- 
guished for  learning  and  penetration  as  any 
who  lived  in  that  period,  who  denounced  the 
custom  of  immersing  candidates  for  baptism 
as  an  unwarrantable  departure  from  the 
primitive  mode  of  administering  this  ordi- 
nance, and  insisted  that  baptism  was  only 
rightly  performed  by  wetting  the  head  and 
shoulders. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten  that  when  the 
early  Christians  immersed  their  subjects  they 
immersed  them  in  perfect  nakedness.  Wheth- 
er male  or  female,  old  or  young,  immersion 
was  never  performed  unless  the  candidate 
had  first  been  divested  of  every  particle  of 
clothing.  And  this  requirement  had  a  foun- 
dation  as   respectable  and   an   antiquity  as 


268 

great  as  the  custom  of  immersion  itself.  If 
immersion  in  water  could  set  forth  the  death 
and  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  the 
unclothing  of  the  person  baptized  did  much 
better  set  forth  the  putting  off  of  the  body 
of  sin  in  order  to  put  on  the  new  man,  which 
is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness. 
And  immersion  has  no  ancient  records  which 
are  not  at  the  same  time  records  of  the  cus- 
tom of  bringing  people  to  baptism  as  naked 
as  they  came  into  the  world.  So  that  if  the 
example  of  the  patristic  church  is  binding 
in  regard  to  immersion,  we  argue  that  it  is 
equally  binding  with  regard  to  this  matter 
of  divesture,  and  that  if  Baptists  are  at  -liber- 
ty to  reject  the  one,  we  are  at  equal  liberty 
to  reject  the  other  also.  We  deny  the  right 
in  any  man  to  hold  us  to  the  oriental  prac- 
tice in  one  particular,  whilst  he  himself  dis- 
cards it.  in  another. 

Nay,  more,  if  we  were  even  to  admit  that 
the  word  bapfizo  ordinarily  signifies  immer- 
sion, and  that  the  first  Christians  ordinarily 
baptized  by  immersion,  we  would  still  not  be 
bound    to    this  specific   mode  of   baptizing. 


269 

We  put  a  case,  mostly  in  the  words  of  one 
who  was  himself  once  a  Baptist  minister, 
and  commend  it  to  the  careful  attention  of 
all  modern  sticklers  for  specific  outward 
forms.  It  is  well  known  that  under  the 
present  dispensation  there  are  two  instituted 
ordinances ;  the  one  in  Scripture  is  expressed 
by  the  term  deipnon,  a  supper,  the  other  by 
baptisma,  baptism.  The  proper  and  obvious 
meaning  of  deipnon  is  a  feast  or  common 
meal;  Mark  6  :  21,  Jno.  21  :  22.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Baptist  theory  the  meaning  of 
baptisma  is  the  total  immersion  of  the  whole 
body.  The  case  then  is  this :  If,  because 
the  meaning  of  the  term  baptisma,  baptism, 
is  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  and  no 
one  can  be  said  to  be  baptized  who  has  not 
been  immersed,  we  ask,  how  can  he  who 
takes  a  bit  of  bread  an  inch  square  and 
drinks  a  spoonful  of  wine,  which  is  neither 
a  feast  nor  a  common  meal,  and  therefore 
not  a  literal  fulfilment  of  the  word  deipnon, 
be  said  to  have  received  the  Lord's  Supper? 
If  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  words  enjoin- 
ing the  one  sacrament  can  be  thus  abridged 
and   the   validity  of  the  sacrament  remain 


270 

unimpaired,  why  may  not  the  ordinary  mean- 
ing of  the  words  in  the  other  sacrament  be 
similarly  abridged  without  detriment  to  the 
essential  character  of  the  ordinance  ?  If  a 
bit  of  bread  and  a  sip  of  wine  will  answer 
for  a  full  meal,  why  will  not  a  handful  of 
water  answer  for  a  total  immersion?  We 
demand  an  answer  to  this  question.  The 
cases  are  precisely  analogous.  Both  are 
positive  commands  and  institutions  of  Christ 
himself.  And,  conceding  all  that  the  Bap- 
tist claims  for  baptisma,  our  refusal  to  be 
totally  immersed  is  no  more  an  infraction  of 
the  Saviour's  command,  than  the  universal 
way  of  receiving  the  Supper.  So  that  if  we 
were  even  to  admit  Dr.  Fuller's  leading  posi- 
tions, which  however  we  do  not  admit  for  one 
moment,  his  own  practice  with  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  effectually  relieves  us  from 
the  conclusions  which  he  so  diligently  seeks 
to  fix  upon  us,  and  utterly  confounds  and 
annihilates  the  logic  by  which  he  would  fain 
convict  some  of  God's  own  blessed  sons  and 
daughters  with  derelictions  unfitting  them  for 
Christian  communion  even  here  in  this  im- 
perfect world. 


271 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Results  of  our  Examination  thus  far — Author- 
ities— Effects  and  Tendencies  of  the  Baptist 
Theory. 

We  have  now  examined  every  point  in 
Dr.  Fuller's  "philological  inquiry  as  lo  the 
meaning  of  baptizo"  Not  a  single  link  in 
the  chain  of  his  "argument"  have  we  omitted. 
The  reader  is  therefore  in  a  position  to  judge 
where  the  truth  lies. 

We  have  shown  that  our  author's  doctrine 
that  baptizo  is  bapto,  made  stronger  and  more 
intense  by  the  addition  of  zo,  is  a  mere  con- 
ceit, without  foundation  in  fact,  contradicted 
by  the  very  examples  given  to  sustain  it, 
and  even  if  true,  completely  subverting  the 
statement  that  baptizo  means  immersion  and 
nothing  else.  Indeed,  what  we  overlooked 
at  the  time,  Mr.  Carson  asserts  in  the  most 
positive  manner  that  "  the  derivative  cannot 
go  beyond  its  primitive  ;"  and  this  he  says  in 
designed  contradiction  of  the  story  about  Dr. 


272 

Person's  opinion,  which  he  quotes  only  to 
question.     See  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  23. 

We  have  also  shown  that  the  doctrine  that 
one  word  cannot  have  more  than  one  mean- 
ing is,  in  its  general  application,  a  falsehood 
which  the  most  ordinary  capacity  may  read- 
ily detect,  and  which,  in  the  specific  case  of 
baplizo,  stands  contradicted  by  all  the  lexi- 
cographers, and  by  the  passages  quoted  to 
show  the  meaning  of  this  word,  as  well  on 
Dr.  Fuller's  side  as  on  ours. 

And  as  to  his  grand  leading  point,  that 
"Baptizo  signifies  a  total  immersion  and  has 
no  other  meaning,"  we  feel  confident  that 
every  candid  reader,  sincerely  inquiring  for 
the  truth,  has  been  amply  satisfied  that  it  is 
as  empty  as  the  chaff  from  the  threshing 
floor.  Mr.  Carson  admits  that  "all  the  lexi- 
cographers and  commentators"  are  against  it ; 
p.  55.  We  have  shown  that,  although  the 
ancient  heathen  Greeks  often  employed  bap- 
tizo in  the  sense  of  dip,  sink,  plunge,  drown, 
overwhelm  and  destroy,  it  also,  from  time 
out  of  mind,  has  had  attached  to  it  the  gen- 
eral sense  of  wash,  cleanse  and  purify.    We 


273 

have  shown  that,  with  one  doubtful  excep- 
tion, it  is  uniformly  used  in  the  Septuagint 
to  signify  purification  or  washing,  without 
reference  to  mode.  We  have  shown  that 
the  New  Testament,  which  is  the  only  infal- 
lible authority  on  this  point,  does  not  use 
baptizo  in  one  single  instance  where  it 
clearly  and  evidently  takes  the  sense  of  total 
immersion  ;  that  it  exchanges  it  with  kathar- 
izo,  to  purify,  and  explains  it  by  dikaioo,  to 
clear;  that  the  sacred  writers  employ  it  with 
reference  to  men  who  only  washed  their 
hands,  and  to  Mosaic  purifications,  which 
were  performed  in  some  instances  by  sprink- 
ling alone,  and  in  others  by  simple  washing 
in  any  manner;  that  there  are  inspired  ac« 
counts  of  baptisms  where  the  circumstances 
and  facts  render  it  impossible  to  believe  that 
they  were  immersions,  and  that  there  are 
things  omitted  and  things  inserted  in  the 
Christian  Scriptures  which  leave  no  room 
for  the  idea  that  baptism  is  necessarily  and 
always  a  total  immersion,  or  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  ever  once  used  the  word  in  such  a 
sense.  We  have  shown  that  the  early 
24 


274 

Christian  writers,  many  of  whom  were  native 
Greeks,  have  used  it  where  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion is  absolutely  excluded,  and  have 
almost  universally  employed  it  in  the  sense 
of  purification.  We  have  shown  that  all 
Dr.  Fuller's  parade  respecting  the  practice 
of  the  patristic  and  modern  Greek  Churches, 
the  "many  waters"  of  Enon,  the  going  down 
into  the  water,  the  coming  up  out  of  the 
water,  katabe,  et  cetera,  so  far  as  respects 
this  question,  is  as  futile  as  emptiness  could 
make  it.  In  short,  we  have  followed  him 
over  the  entire  field  of  his  disquisition,  and 
found  him  contradicting  the  plainest  facts, 
interpolating  historical  statements,  giving  for 
Scripture  what  is  not  in  Scripture,  perverting 
authorities,  wresting  inspired  language  from 
its  obvious  import,  charging  the  best  and 
wisest  men  that  have  ever  lived  with  a  spu- 
rious Christianity,  excluding  them  from  the 
visible  church,  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the 
sure  hope  of  heaven,  binding  down  the  free 
and  glorious  blessings  of  Christ's  mediation 
to  a  mere  accident  of  external  ceremony, 
sending  us   back  to  the  old   heathen  writers 


275 

to  ascertain  whether  we  are  Christians,  at 
every  step  using  logic  that  is  unsound  and 
assertions  that  are  not  true,  making  a  heter- 
ogeneous set  of  modern  sectarians  the  only 
true  Church  of  God  on  earth,  denouncing  the 
most  solemn  sacraments  of  the  great  house- 
hold of  God  for  more  than  a  thousand  years 
as  superstition  or  profanity  at  once  invalid 
and  unchristian  ;  and  all  this  as  indispensa- 
ble to  the  maintenance  of  his  dogma,  that 
"Baptizo  signifies  immersion  and  has  no 
other  meaning."  And  we  now  ask,  what 
more  any  candid  man  can  require  to  justify 
the  most  decisive  verdict  from  a  discerning 
Christian  public  against  our  author  and  his 
cause  ?  or  to  show  that  baptizo  in  the  New 
Testament  is  not  that  narrow  and  merely 
modal  word  upon  which  his  whole  system 
rests?     Look  at  the  following  authorities. 

Dr.  Dwight,  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
theologians  and  scholars  this  country  has 
ever  produced,  says,  "I  have  examined  al- 
most one  hundred  instances  in  which  the 
word  bap/izo  and  its  derivatives  are  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  four  in  the  Septua- 


276 

gint;  these,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  being 
all  the  instances  contained  in  both.  By  this 
examination  it  is  to  my  apprehension  evident 
that  the  following  things  are  true : — That 
the  primary  meaning  of  these  terms  is  cleans- 
ing, the  effect,  not  the  mode  of  washing;  and 
that  these  words,  although  often  capable  of 
denoting  any  mode  of  washing,  whether  by 
affusion,  sprinkling  or  immersion,  (since 
cleansing  was  familiarly  accomplished  by 
the  Jews  in  all  these  ways,)  yet  in  many 
instances  cannot,  without  obvious  improprie- 
ty, be  made  to  signify  immersion,  and  in 
others  cannot  signify  it  at  all ;"  Theol.,  vol. 
4,  p.  345. 

Dr.  Henderson  says,  "  With  respect  to  the 
Greek  word  bapfizo,  after  having  read  al- 
most every  work  that  professes  to  throw  any 
light  upon  it,  and  carefully  examined  all  the 
passages  in  which  both  it  and  its  derivatives 
occur  in  the  sacred  volume,  and  a  very  con- 
siderable number  of  those  in  which  it  is  found 
in  classic  authors,  we  are  free  to  confess  we 
have  not  yet  fallen  in  with  a  single  instance 
in  which  it  can  be  satisfactorily  proved  that 


277 

it  signifies  a  submersion  of  the  whole  body, 
without  at  the  same  time  conveying  the  idea 
that  the  submersion  was  permanent,  i.  e., 
that  the  body  thus  submerged  sunk  to  rise 
no  more.  So  far  as  has  yet  been  ascer- 
tained, the  word  is  never  used  by  any  ancient 
author  in  the  sense  of  one  person  performing 
an  act  of  submersion  upon  another."  How 
evident  therefore  that  this  word  has  a  pecu- 
liar and  specific  sense  when  employed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  when  so  employed, 
mere  immersion  cannot  be  its  meaning. 

Dr.  Watson  says,  "The  verb  bapto,  with 
its  derivatives,  signifies  to  dip  the  hand  into 
a  dish,  to  stain  a  vesture  with  blood,  to  wet 
the  body  with  dew,  to  paint  or  smear  the 
face  with  colors,  to  stain  the  hand  by  press- 
ing a  substance,  to  be  overwhelmed  in  the 
waters  as  a  sunken  ship,  to  be  drowned  by 
falling  into  the  water,  to  sink  in  the  neuter 
sense,  to  immerse  totally,  to  plunge  up  to  the 
neck,  to  be  immersed  up  to  the  middle,  to  be 
drunk  with  wine,  to  be  dyed,  tinged  or  im- 
bued, to  wash  by  affusion  of  water,  to  pour 
water  upon  the  hands  or  any  part  of  the 
24* 


278 

body,  to  sprinkle.  A  word  then  of  such  ap- 
plication affords  as  good  a  proof  of  sprinkling, 
or  partial  dipping,  or  washing  with  water,  as 
for  immersion  in  it.  The  controversy  on  this 
accommodating  word  has  been  carried  on  to 
weariness;  and  if  ever  the  advocates  of  im- 
mersion could  prove,  what  they  have  not 
been  able  to  do,  that  plunging  is  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  term,  they  would  gain  noth- 
ing, since  in  Scripture  it  is  notoriously  used 
to  express  other  applications  of  water." 

Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  says,  "  This  word 
(baptizo)  does  not  necessarily,  nor  even 
commonly,  signify  to  immerse;  but  also  im- 
plies to  wash,  to  sprinkle,  to  pour  on  water 
and  to  tinge  or  die  with  any  liquid  ;  and 
therefore  accords  very  well  wiih  the  mode 
of  bap: ism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion.  ...  It 
does  legitimately  signify  the  application  of 
water  in  any  way,  as  well  as  by  immersion. 
Nay,  I  can  assure  you,  if  the  most  mature 
and  competent  Greek  scholars  that  ever  lived 
may  be  allowed  to  decide  in  this  case,  that 
many  examples  of  the  use  of  this  word  occur 
in   Scripture  in  which  it   not  only  may,  but 


279 

manifestly  must  signify  sprinkling,  perfusion 
or  washing  in  any  way." 

Edwards  says,  "  Baptizo  has  indeed  been 
used  for  all  the  modes  o^  washing — sprink- 
ling, pouring  and  immersing:  whereas  it 
does  not  express  the  one  nor  the  other,  but 
ivaslung  only  ;  and  this  may  be  done  in  either 
of  the  modes ;  and  therefore,  when  we  read 
of  any  person  or  thing  being  baptized,  we 
cannot  conclude  from  the  word  itself  whether 
it  was  done  by  affusion,  aspersion  or  immer- 
sion," 

Dr.  Beecher  says,  "  The  word  baptizo,  as 
a  religious  term,  means  neither  dip  nor 
sprinkle,  immerse  nor  pour,  nor  any  other 
external  action  in  applying  a  fluid  to  the 
body  or  the  body  to  a  fluid,  nor  any  action 
that  is  limited  to  one  mode  of  performance  ; 
but  as  a  religious  term  it  means,  at  all  times, 
to  purify  or  cleanse, — words  of  a  meaning 
so  general,  as  not  to  be  confined  to  any  mode, 
or  agent,  or  means,  or  object,  whether  ma- 
terial or  spiritual,  but  to  leave  the  widest 
scope  for  the  question  as  to  the  mode.  So 
that  in  this   usage  it  is  in  every  respect  a 


280 

perfect  synonym  of  the  word  katharho. 
This  proposition  I  at  first  derived  solely  from 
an  examination  of  the  New  Testament  usage, 
and  I  here  repeat  it  as  a  true  view  of  the 
import  of  the  language  of  that  supreme  law 
of  the  Christian  Church.  .  And  if  so,  all 
attempts  to  enforce  on  the  Church  obedience 
to  a  command  to  immerse  is  a  manifest  in- 
vasion of  the  great  principles  of  religious 
liberty.  It  is  teaching  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men." 

Dr.  Fuller's  theory  then,  that  "  Jesus 
commands  his  disciples  to  be  immersed,"  is 
wholly  untenable.  He  may  honestly  enter- 
tain it,  and  many  of  his  followers  may  take  it 
as  the  truth  of  God  ;  but  it  is  nevertheless 
wholly  unsupported  by  the  origin  or  use  of 
the  word  upon  which  he  relies,  contradicted 
by  apostolic  practice  and  by  the  admissions  of 
the  great  body  of  the  Church,  from  the  time 
of  Paul  and  John  until  now,  at  war  with 
scriptural  intimations  as  to  mode  in  baptism, 
and  with  the  general  tone  and  spirit  of  the 
gospel,  and  of  the  free  dispensation  which 
the  gospel  introduced,  having  its  chief  source 


281 

and  nourishment  in  what  is  as  anti-christian 
as  it  is  Pharisaic,  superstitious  and  sectarian, 
and  as  mischievous  in  its  tendencies  as  it  is 
unsound  in  principle.  Indeed  it  would  hard- 
ly be  necessary  to  look  farther  than  the 
effects  of  this  man-made  gospel  in  order  to 
see  that  its  source  is  not  divine.  It  excludes 
the  repenting  sick  from  the  privilege  of  con- 
fessing Christ  in  his  own  appointed  mart  of 
discipleship  and  sacrament  of  forgiveness. 
It  does  the  same  in  the  cases  of  those  mem- 
bers of  our  race  whom  the  gospel  shall  reach 
in  arid  deserts,  where  there  is  scarcely  water 
enough  within  reach  to  sustain  life,  or  in 
those  polar  realms  where  unmitigated  winter 
reigns  for  nearly  all  the  year,  locking  up 
every  stream  in  icy  fetters,  covering  the 
surface  of  the  deep  with  impregnable  solidi- 
ty, and  rendering  the  immersion  of  a  man  in 
water  the  instantaneous  conversion  of  him 
into  a  statue  of  frozen  flesh  and  blood.  It 
destroys  the  solemnity  and  disturbs  the  de- 
votion which  ought  to  attend  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  baptismal  sacrament,  often 
converting  an  ordinance  of  God  into  a  show 


282 

for  the  amusement  of  men,  giving  point  to 
the  jests  of  the  vulgar  and  bringing  pain  to 
the  feelings  of  the  devout.  Dr.  Fuller,  with 
all  his  studied  sanctity  of  manner,  the  ele- 
gancies of  music,  the  assistance  of  waiting 
friends,  the  concealment  of  the  rising  sub- 
ject's face,  the  considerate  interposition  of 
his  own  person  to  cover  the  sorry  and  swag- 
gering retreat  of  his  candidates  from  the 
pool,  and  all  the  shields  and  graces  that  his 
ingenuity  can  throw  around  it,  cannot  de- 
prive immersion  of  its  liability  to  the  charge 
which  we  here  make  upon  it.  It  also  sub- 
verts the  order  of  the  gospel,  exalting  the 
ritual  above  what  is  personal,  placing  the 
form  above  the  substance,  making  spiritual 
qualifications  nothing  unless  accompanied 
by  submission  to  a  mere  puncto  of  external 
ceremony,  and  engrafting  Levitical  bondage 
upon  evangelical  freedom.  It  leads  to  the 
denunciation  of  the  most  solemn  official  acts 
of  the  greatest  and  most  pious  ministers  that 
have  ever  lived  as  profanity  and  lies,  not 
to  be  respected  for  a  moment.  It  obscures 
the  vital  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith,  by 


283 

displacing  and  supplanting  them  in  the  pul- 
pit and  in  the  common  mind  by  mere  ques- 
tions of  outward  formalities,  which  can  profit 
nothing.  It  begets  a  superstitious  regard  for 
the  rite  of  baptism  itself,  as  though  salvation 
were  to  be  obtained  in  the  water.  It  was  so 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  It  is  sc 
now  in  the  case  of  the  Campbellites  and  in 
the  cases  of  very  many  individual  Baptists, 
Dr.  Fuller  himself  has  not  escaped  this  ten- 
dency of  his  system.  "  Saved  or  damned  /" 
are  the  first  words  in  his  book ;  and  if  sal- 
vation and  damnation  are-  not  associated  in 
his  mind  with  submission  and  refusal  to  go 
under  the  water,  or  if  he  does  not  in  some 
way  regard  this  momentous  question  as  in- 
volved in  immersion,  it  is  contemptible  hy*- 
pocrisy,  if  not  downright  profanity,  to  intro- 
duce an  argument  on  immersion  with  such 
words,  amplified  too  as  if  this  were  the 
question  to  be  decided.  Meet  a  zealous 
Baptist  where  you  will,  and  immersion  is 
obtruded  upon  you  as  a  theme  paramount  tc 
all  others.  Nearly  every  Baptist  preacher 
who  has  learned  to  decline  Ho,  and  many  a 


284 

Baptist  preacher  who  knows  not  what  Ho  is, 
must  needs  write  a  book,  tract  or  something 
else  on  immersion,  just  as  though  that  em- 
bodied the  essence  of  Christianity,  or  as  if  it 
were  the  ultimatum  of  ministerial  effort  to 
hold  up  above  every  thing  else  this  one 
matter  of  simple  form.  Stoutly  as  it  may 
be  denied, 

Ho  !  every  mother's  son  and  daughter, 
Here's  salvation  in  the  water, 

are  lines  which  express  what  may  be  seen 
in  the  spirit  of  Baptist  literature,*  preaching 

*  Out  of  thirteen  of  the  Publications  of  the  "  Southern  Bap- 
tist Publication  Society,-1'  including  Hymn-Books  and  Rhymes, 
and  conversations  for  children,  four  are  on  the  subject  of 
Baptism.  The  Editor  of  the  Baptist  paper  of  Baltimore  eon- 
•cedes  that,  out  of  170  volumes,  including  Sabbath  school 
book?,  and  biographies,  published  by  the  "  American  Baptist 
Publication  Society."  19  are  strictly  on  "  the  Baptismal  ques- 
tion," and  that,  out  of  207  Tracts,  20  are  exclusively  !i  denom- 
inational!" 

Professor  Eaton,  in  a  speech  before  the  Baptist  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  April  28th,  1840,  says,  "  Never, 
sir,  was  there  a  cord  struck  that  vibrated  simultaneously 
through  so  many  Baptist  hearts  from  one  extremity  of  the 
land  to  the  other,  as  when  it  was  announced  that  the  heathen 
world  must  look  to  them  alone  for  an  unveiled  view  of  the  glo- 
ries of  the  Gosjicl  of  Christ."  '■  A  deep  conviction  seized 
the  minds  of  almost  the  whole  body,  that  they  were  divinely 
and  peculiarly  set  for  the  defence  and  dissemination  of  the 
Gospel,  as  delivered  to  man  by  its  heavenly  author."  And 
yet  we  are  to  be  called  "  forgers  of  wholesale  falsehood," 
when  we  say  that  salvation  by  water  is  the  spirit  of  Baptist 
literature  '  Also  that  men  should  be  so  blinded  by  fanatical 
sectarianism,  as  not  to  know  '•  what,  manner  of  spirit  they  are 
of,"  ami  so  infatuated  in  their  mistaken  zeal,  as  angrily  to 
brand  even  the  truth  as  a  lie  ! 


285 

and  conversation— the  fruit  of  a  deep  seated 
tendency  in  their  system  to  divert  the  mind 
from  the  vital  elements  of  saving  religion  to 
a  superstitious  and  fanatical  regard  for  an 
insignificant  mode  of  performing  an  oiUward 
ceremony. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Baptist  dogma  leads 
to  the  excommunication  and  to  the  ecclesi- 
astical punishment  of  holy  Christian  men 
and  women,  by  thousands  and  millions, 
whose  names  are  written  in  heaven  and 
whom  God  has  adopted  as  his  own  sons  and 
daughters.  It  leads  to  the  intolerant  pro- 
scription of  all,  however  devout  of  heart  and 
meek  in  spirit,  who  do  not  embrace  it.  It  is 
the  foster-mother  of  a  system  of  proselytism 
which  puts  it  not  beneath  the  dignity  of  Dr. 
Fuller  himselfxto  break  through  all  his  pro- 
fessions of  fraternity,  insidiously  to  creep 
into  the  flocks  of  men  whom  he  calls  "  brelh* 
ren"  to  steal  away  their  sheep,  and  which 
would  make  him  think  he  had  done  God 
service  if  he  could  drain  every  church  and 
destroy  every  congregation  in  Christendom 
which  refuses  to  bow  to  his  sectarian  dicta^ 
25 


286 

"ion.  It  has  led  to  the  public  and  formal 
denunciation  of  the  great  Bible  Societies  of 
Britain  and  America— those  two  wings  of 
the  apocalyptic  angel  with  the  everlasting 
gospel  to  preach  to  every  kindred,  people; 
tribe  and  tongue— as  "  combinations  to  obscure 
the  Divide  Revelation  /"  It  has  engendered 
in  its  devotees  a  bigotry,  intolerance  and 
self  sufficiency,  which  Robert  Hall,  though 
a  Baptist,  saw,  lamented  and  sought  to  coun. 
teract,  as  being  the  same  in  essence  and 
equally  reprehensible  with  the  most  arro- 
gant and  anti-christian  assumptions  of  the 
Papacy  itself.  It  has  led,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  that  eloquent  man  of  God,  to 
il  glaring  instances  of  gross  violation  as  well 
of  the  dictates  of  inspiration  as  of  the  max- 
ims  of  Christian  antiquity;  both  of  which," 
says  he,  "  concur  in  inculcating  the  doctrine 
of  the  absolute  unity  of  the  Church,  and  of 
the  horrible  incongruity,  I  might  almost  say 
impiety,  of  attempting  to  establish  a  system 
which  represents  a  great  majority  of  its 
members  as  personally  disqualified  for  com- 
munion."    It   falsifies   the  words   of  Jesus. 


287 

that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail 
against  his  kingdom,  by  representing  the 
world  as  without  the  presence  of  God's 
Church  for  more  than  seven  hundred  years. 
Nay,  such  is  its  arbitrary  and  anti-christian 
bearing  as  to  make  it  extremely  doubtful 
whether  there  is  now  any  where  under  the 
whole  heaven  any  such  a  thing  as  a  true, 
legitimate,  Christian  Church. 

Can  such  a  theory,  with  such  tendencies, 
plead  scriptural  warrant?  Can  the  immac- 
ulate Son  of  God  be  the  author  of  such  a 
system?  Can  heaven  be  the  origin  of  such 
doctrine  ?  Can  Jehovah  be  the  parent  of  such 
confusion  ?  To  say  so  would  be  to  slander 
the  great  God,  to  obscure  the  attributes  of  his 
love  and  mercy,  to  throw  discredit  upon  his 
word,  to  cast  contempt  upon  his  Gospel  and 
to  divide  his  kingdom  against  itself.  We 
cannot  believe  it.  It  is  too  much  for  the 
most  fanatical  credulity.  It  is  an  outrage 
upon  common  sense.  It  is  Papal  arrogance 
in  the  guise  of  Protestant  humility.  We 
pity  the  people  who  have  suffered  themselves 
to  be  imposed  on  and  infatuated  by  it.     We 


288 

honor  and  sympathize  with  them  as  Chris- 
tians, so  far  as  they  show  a  Christian  temper 
and  walk.  Many  of  them  are  doubtless  good 
men  and  true,  and  accepted  of  God  ;  but 
they  are  giving  their  sanction  to  a  system 
the  bearings  of  which  are  as  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel  and  as  antagonistic  to 
some  of  its  clearest  dictates  as  error  is  to 
truth  or  sin  to  holiness;  a  system  which 
leads  them  to  call  me  a  minister  of  Jesus, 
whilst  they  pronounce  my  administrations 
invalid  and  seek  to  persuade  away  my  peo- 
ple, as  if  I  were  a  devouring  wolf;  which 
leads  them  to  call  me  a  Christian  brother, 
whilst  they  excommunicate  me  from  my 
Saviour's  Church  ;  which  leads  them  to  hon- 
or me  as  a  Christian  friend  with  one  breath, 
and  with  the  next  to  deny  to  me  the  hope  of 
salvation,  except  as  they  extend  it  to  the  un- 
baptized  heathen;  and  which  leads  them  at 
times  to  flatter  me  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  and 
yet  to  turn  me  away  from  the  Lordys  table 
like  a  dog. 

And  this,  we  are  to  be   told,  is  Christian- 
ity ;    the    pure,    expanded,    inspiring,   love- 


289 

filled,  meek  and  charitable  religion  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  the  very  perfection  of  that  economy 
of  love  and  liberty  of  which  the  holy  seers 
of  old  did  sing,  and  for  which  the  heart  of 
many  generations  yearned  and  longed  and 
prayed!  "Oh,  tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish 
it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon,  lest  the  Phil- 
istines rejoice  and  the  daughters  of  the  un- 
circumcised  triumph!" 

This  then  is  Richard-Fullerism,  so  far  as 
respects  the  conclusions  of  his  "calm  philo- 
logical inquiry  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  Greek 
word."  And  we  ask  the  reader,  as  he  shall 
answer  at  the  dreadful  day  of  judgment, 
whether  he  can  look  upon  it  as  the  truth  of 
God? 


25* 


290 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


The  Baptism  of  Infants — How  spokm  of  by 
Baptists — JYot  a  sin,  as  alleged — The 
Commission  — "  Disciplesv — Children  of 
believer's  ild>sciples — The  Saviour's  teach- 
ing on  the  subject.  '  ' 

We  now  come  to  notice  that  part  of  Dr. 
Fuller's  "argument"  which  treats  of  Infant 
Baptism.  This  is  an  important  department 
of  this  controversy;  but  we  have  already 
occupied  so  much  space  that  we  shall  be 
compelled  to  abbreviate  what  we  had  mark- 
ed out  to  say  upon  it. 

One  of  the  most  noticeable  things  in  what 
our  opponents  have  recorded  concerning  in- 
fant baptism,  is  the  wholesale  and  unqualified 
manner  in  which  they  have  condemned  and 
denounced  it.  Indeed,  they  do  not  hesitate 
to  say,  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  dreadful  and 
reprehensible  abominations  that  have  ever 
afflicted  the  human  race.  Mr.  Kinghorn 
regards   it  as  "  the  very  precursor  of  And- 


291 

Christ,  the  inlet  of  almost  every  abomination.'''' 
Mr.  Howell  declaims  against  it  as  "an  evil 
which  despoils  the  Church  and  subverts  the 
doctrine  of  infant  salvation — which  is  the 
grand  foundation  of  the  union  of  Church  ani 
State,  the  source  of  religious  persecutions, 
a  hindrance  to  the  conversion  of  the  world, 
a  sin  against  God,  one  of  the  most  calanu 
itous  evils  with  which  the  Church  has  ever  been 
visited,  the  most  melancholy  of  all  evils,  and 
more  disastrous  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  sal- 
vation than  any  of  the  progeny  of  superstition." 
And  Mr.  Ide  execrates  it  as  "  that  old  upas 
tree,  ivhichj  loith  its  death-distilling  branches., 
popery,  prelacy  and  skepticism,  has  for 
fourteen  centuries  shaded  and  blasted  the 
world!"  Dr.  Fuller  chimes  in  with  the 
same  strain  of  sweeping  denunciation,  call- 
ing it  "  an  anti-christian  practice,  introducing 
and  perpetuating  the  most  glaring  inconsist- 
ency and  mischievous  confusion,  tarnishing 
the  glory  of  the  atonement  and  doing  vast 
injury  to  our  children.''  And  if  Baptists 
are  God's  oracles,  there  never  has  been  a 
curse  so  dreadful,   or  a  blight  so  terrific  as 


292 

that  inflicted  by  the  dedication  of  little  inno- 
cents to  their  Maker  in  an  ordinance  which 
he  himself  has  appointed  as  a  sign  of  his 
love  and  saving  grace  !  Infanticide  itself  is 
hardly  a  sin  so  enormous! 

But  how  can  this  be  true  ?  "  Si?i  is  the 
transgression  of  the  law;''  but  what  law  is 
transgressed  by  the  baptizing  of  infants  ? 
The  law  of  parental  duty  ?  No  ;  this  is  a 
thing  which  it  specially  inculcates,  enforces 
and  seeks  to  fulfil.  The  law  of  personal  re- 
sponsibility ?  No  ;  for  it  acknowledges  this 
in  all  its  rightful  amplitude,  and  marks  each 
child  as  God's  from  its  infancy,  and  bound 
over  to  be  a  faithful  servant  of  the  King  of 
kings  and  Lord  of  lords.  The  law  of  social 
privilege  ?  No  ;  this  also  it  fulfils  by  bring- 
ing the  proper  persons  under  the  most  solemn 
vows  to  see  to  the  wants  and  training  of  the 
child  baptized.  Where  then  is  the  sin  ?  In 
what  consists  the  element  of  the  crime  ? 
What  right  is  violated?  What  principle  of 
morality  is  outraged  ?  What  precept  of  God 
is  infracted  ?  Let  our  accusers  answer,  for 
it  is  vain  for  them  to  think  of  escaping  the 
burden  of  proof  in  a  case  like  this. 


293 

If  infant  baptism  were  the  dreadful  here- 
sy, the  devastating  curse,  the  horrible  beast, 
dripping  from  head  to  foot  with  the  blood  of 
souls,  which  Baptists  declare  it  to  be,  the 
Scriptures  must  certainly  take  notice  of  it,  or 
give  some  cautions  against  it.  Otherwise 
Revelation  would  be  an  insufficient  guide. 
But  neither  Fuller,  Carson,  Booth,  Kinghom, 
Ide,  Campbell  nor  Robert  Boyte  C.  Howell 
have  brought  forward  one  single  inspired 
passage  condemnatory  of  it.  With  all  their 
enthusiasm  and  sectarian  zeal,  they  have  not 
even  pretended  that  any  such  passage  is  to 
be  found.  Against  popery,  schism  and  skep- 
ticism, against  evil  in  all  its  protean  shapes, 
and  against  abuses  of  divine  ordinances  of 
all  forms  and  grades,  the  Scriptures  present 
the  fullest  and  most  overwhelming  array. 
But  here  is  a  thing  which,  we  are  told,  is 
the  most  mischievous  of  errors;  the  most 
melancholy  of  all  the  progeny  of  supersti- 
tion ;  a  death-distilling  upas,  blasting  the 
earth  for  almost  one  third  of  its  age  ;  the 
parent  of  popery,  superstition  and  unbelief, 
spreading  ruin  and  damnation  over  all  the 


294 

face  of  Christendom,  from  the  beginning 
until  now ;  and  yet  not  a  word  to  be  found 
against  it  in  the  Bible,  not  an  allusion  to  it 
in  the  prophecies,  and  not  a  precept  in  all 
God's  Revelation  to  protect  the  devout  pa- 
rent from  it !  Can  such  a  thing  be  possible  ? 
Is  not  this  very  silence  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
proof  enough  that  infant  baptism  is  not,  and 
cannot  be  that  blasting  curse  and  damning 
sin  described  in  Baptist  writings  on  this 
subject  ? 

Nay,  more,  if  it  is  an  evil  and  a  sin  to 
baptize  children,  then  the  best  and  most 
useful  men  that  ever  lived  were  "  sinners 
above  all,"  enemies  of  the  Church,  and  of 
the  race,  and  of  God  himself.  In  that  case 
Luther  and  Melancthon,  Knox,  Howe,  Leigh- 
ton,  Baxter,  Wesley,  Doddridge,  Brainerd, 
Payson,  Chalmers  and  all  the  very  flower  of 
Christendom,  are  to  be  set  down  as  the  veriest 
sons  of  Belial.  Where  then  has  Christ's 
Church  been  for  so  many  ages?  What  be- 
comes of  the  faith  and  constancy  of  martyrs, 
who  cheerfully  laid  down  their  lives  out  of 
love  for  Jesus?     What  shall  be  said  for  the 


m 

wisdom  and  piety  of  those  men,  advocates  ot 
infant  baptism,  who  stand  forth  on  the  his- 
toric page  as  the  boast  of  their  species,  the 
lights  of  their  times,  the  Joshuas,  Elies,  Ez- 
ras, Davids,  Jeremiahs  and  Daniels  of  the 
new  dispensation  ?  Must  we  at  length  re- 
verse the  sentiments  of  love  and  grateful 
praise  which  generations  have  inscribed  upon 
their  tombs,  and  cast  out  their  names  as  the 
guilty  minions  of  Anti-Christ?  God  of  our 
fathers!  and  has  it  come  to  this!  Alas! 
who  can  set  limits  to  sectarian   fanaticism! 

But  let  us  come  down  to  the  naked  point 
in  dispute.  If  sound  scriptural  reasons  can 
be  given  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  all  the 
fierce  denunciations  which  have  been  direct- 
ed against  it  and  its  advocates  must  pass  for 
mere  ebullitions  of  religious  phrenzy. 

Dr.  Fuller  has  undertaken  to  prove  that 
the  baptizing  of  infants  is  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures.  Faithful  to  his  Tubbermore 
guide,  he  begins  with  the  commission  in 
Matthew,  "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  (mar- 
gin, make  disciples  of)  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 


2S6 

Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you."  Mr.  Carson  says,  that 
he  "  would  gainsay  an  angel  from  heaven, 
who  should  say  that  this  commission  may 
extend  to  the  baptism  of  any  but  (adult)  be- 
lievers ;"  and  that  "  if  he  even  found  another 
command,  enjoining  the  baptism  of  the  in- 
fants of  believers,  he  should  not  move  an 
inch  from  his  position!"  p.  170.  And  in 
the  same  stubborn  and  infatuated  spirit  Dr. 
Fuller  clings  to  this  commission  as  if  there 
could  be  no  Scripture  beside  it,  insisting  that 
it  ordains  the  baptizing  of  believers,  and  that 
it  is  a  waste  of  time — a  casting  of  pearls 
before  swine — to  attempt  argument  with  a 
man  who  does  not  perceive  that  this  for  ever 
shuts  out  infants  from  the  command !  To 
use  his  own  classic  words,  "  Was  the  like 
ever  heard  out  of  Bedlam  ?w 

Now  the  answer  to  this  way  of  reasoning 
is  at.  once  short  and  conclusive.  The  com- 
mission does  not  say,  "  Go  and  baptize  be- 
lievers, much  less,  Go  and  baptize  believers 
only.     The   only  command  is  to  baptize  all 


297 

nations.  The  words  in  Mark  contain  no 
command  to  baptize  at  all,  but  simply  a 
promise  to  believers  who  have  been  bap- 
tized.  To  say  that  Mark  calls  the  same 
persons  believers  whom  Matthew  calls  disci- 
pies,  and  that  these  are  parallel  words,  is  a 
mere  gratuitous  assumption,  without  a  parti- 
cle of  proof  any  where  to  be  found  in  either 
passage.  And  if  an  angel  from  heaven  and 
all  other  Scripture  is  to  be  gainsayed  on 
such  grounds,  it  is  useless  for  Dr.  Fuller  to 
assign  to  us  all  the  "obliquity  of  mind,"  or 
to  claim  to  himself  a  teachable  discipleship 
above  the  infants  of  believers. 

But  if  we  even  take  this  command  in  the 
narrowest  sense  the  words  allow,  it  can  be 
restricted  no  farther  than  to  "  disciples"  A 
disciple  is  simply  a  learner.  This  is  the 
first  definition  Donegan  gives  of  the  original 
word,  mathetses.  And  the  infants  of  pious 
parents  are,  from  their  very  birth,  learners  of 
Christ.  It  is  beyond  the  power  of  man  to 
form  an  estimate  as  to  the  extent  to  which  a 
devout  and  believing  spirit  in  parents  may 
be  made  to  infuse  itself  into  their  children- 
26 


298 

or  as  to  how  far  the  discipleship  of  pious 
parents  secures  and  includes  discipleship  in 
their  infant  offspring.  It  is  certain  that  di- 
vine influences  may  be  communicated  and 
holy  emotions  awakened  even  before  the 
child  has  learned  the  use  of  speech ;  and 
that  where  parents  will  skillfully  perform 
their  part,  their  children  will  needs  grow  up 
disciples,  with  a  mould  of  piety  dating  back 
in  early  infancy.  They  are  in  the  strictest 
sense  mathetai.  By  the  necessity  of  their 
age,  and  by  the  privilege  of  having  believing 
parents,  they  are  learners,  and  learners  in 
Christ.  And  to  shut  them  out  from  the  or- 
dinance to  which  learners  in  Christ  are 
entitled  is  to  reject  those  whom  Christ  him- 
self has  included. 

The  command,  however,  by  no  means 
requires  that  the  subject  must  be  a  disciple 
prior  to  baptism.  Its  literal  terms  are,  "  Go 
and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them."  All 
nations  must  certainly  embrace,  all  classes, 
male  and  female,  adults  and  infants;  and 
all  these  are  to  be  discipled  by  baptizing 
them.     So  that  if  we  are  to  bind  ourselves 


299 

up  to  the  sheer  letter  of  the  commission,  the 
compulsory  baptism  of  the  ungodly,  like  that 
of  the  Saxons  by  order  of  Charlemagne,  is 
a  thing  much  more  imperiously  demanded 
than  the  denial  of  baptism  to  infants.  Rea- 
son and  Scripture  analogy  are  the  only  things 
to  warrant  any  limitation.  And  reason  and 
analogy  alike  require  that  the  word  d'sciple 
should  be  understood  in  its  largest  sense,  and 
that  all  should  be  baptized  of  whom  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  they  are  being  made 
learners  in  the  school  of  Jesus. 

We  will  not  now  suffer  ourselves  to  be 
drawn  into  the  metaphysical  speculation  as 
to  whether  a  child  can  or  cannot  have  faith. 
We  know  that  faith  has  its  degrees  and 
phases, — that  salvation  is  accommodated  to 
the  necessities  of  all  classes  of  mankind, — - 
that  infancy  and  childhood  are  the  periods 
of  the  highest  bloom  of  a  confiding  disposi- 
tion,— that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  not 
the  product  of  human  thought,  understand- 
ing, feeling  or  will, — and  that  the  adminis- 
trations of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  bound  to  no 
age  or  degree  of  intelligence,  but  extend  as 


300 

well  to  the  infant  just  from  its  mother's  womb, 
as  to  the  preacher  on  Zion's  walls  or  the 
apostle  amid  the  scenes  of  Pentecost.  Dr. 
Fuller  agrees  that  infants  are  saved,  and 
refuses  to  have  any  thing  to  say  to  those 
who  deny  it.  And  certainly,  if  they  are 
saved,  they  must  be  capable  of  receiving 
and  do  receive,  such  experiences  of  God's 
methods  of  sanctification  as  to  meet  all  the 
necessities  of  their  tender  age.  Mr.  Carson 
does  indeed  say,  that  "the  gospel  has  nothing 
to  do  with  infants ;"  that  "  the  salvation  of 
the  gospel  is  confined  to  believers;"  that 
"by  the  gospel  no  infant  can  be  saved  ;"  that 
"  infants  who  enter  heaven  must  be  regener- 
ated, but  not  by  the  gospel ;  and  that,  if 
saved,  they  must  be  saved  in  some  other 
way  than  by  the  gospel  ;"  p.  173.  What  a 
happy  piece  of  consolation  this  for  the  Chris- 
tian parent  at  the  graves  of  his  little  ones  ! 
Not  saved  by  the  gospel,  but  some  other 
way  !  Oh,  what  a  melancholy  thing  then  is 
an  infant's  tomb!  for  it  is  written,  <c  If  any 
man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than 
that  ye   have  received,  let  him  be  accursed." 


301 

But,  thanks  to  God  !  we  are  not  driven  with 
the  Baptist  to  seek  some  " other  gospel"  to 
take  our  dying  babes  to  the  world  of  rest. 
They  live  for  ever  by  the  common  salvation 
of  the  same  gospel  through  which  we  hope. 
And  if  they  can  receive  enough  of  that  gos- 
pel to  take  them  to  the  invisible  fold  of  the 
church  triumphant,  what  daring  presumption 
is  it  for  man  to  interpose  and  adjudge  them 
disqualified  for  that  much  more  mixed  fold 
of  the  visible  church  on  earth  I 

We  lay  down  the  broad  proposition  then, 
that  the  infants  of  believing  parents  are 
qualified  for  a  place  in  God's  kingdom  in 
every  sense  in  which  that  kingdom  is  con- 
templated in  the  holy  Scriptures.  The  man 
who  will  exclude  them  from  God's  kingdom, 
in  its  highest  perfection  in  glory,  is  no  better 
than  an  atheist;  and  if  they  are  fit  for  the 
kingdom  in  its  highest  fullness,  they  are  also 
fit  for  it  in  its  more  earthly  forms.  The  man 
who  will  deny  it  is  a  gainsayer  of  the  Son 
of  God  ;  for  Jesus  says,  "  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God;"  Matt.  19  :  14.  No  mallei 
how  we  apply  this  passage,  no  ingenuity 
26* 


302 

under  heaven  can  so  warp  or  twist  it  as  to 
cut  out  of  it  Christ's  recognition  of  a  fitness 
in  children  to  be  partakers  of  the  kingdom 
of  God.  In  any  sense  that  the  words  will 
bear,  they  point  to  qualities  in  "little  child- 
ren "  constituting  the  very  model  of  what  is 
necessary  to  entrance  into  the  divine  king, 
dom.  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  if  we  understand 
the  passage  as  applying  only  to  infants,  it 
would  exclude  all  others,  and  be  equivalent 
to  saying  that  none  but  infants  can  be  in  the 
kingdom.  But  does  he  not  see,  that  to  con- 
fine it  to  adults  resembling  little  children 
just  as  effectually  sweeps  away  all  hope  of 
infant  salvation  ?  If  little  children  are  not 
included  among  those  whose  is  the  kingdom, 
where  will  he  find  authority  for  believing 
that  departed  babes  are  in  heaven?  Nay, 
if  to  draw  a  mere  simile  was  all  the  Saviour 
meant,  he  might  jus!  as  well  have  said  of 
lamhs  and  cloves,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God."  But  no,  says  Mr.  Carson,  "  The 
likeness  is  a  likeness  in  rational  and  moral 
properties — a  likeness  of  temper,  disposition 
or    character    of  mind — not  to  be  found  in 


303 

lambs  or  doves;  these  are  teachableness,  hu- 
mility, &c.;"  p.  200.  What !  an  infant  pos- 
sessed of  rational  and  moral  properties,  a 
christian  "  character  of  mind,"  a  "teacha- 
bleness and  humility''''  rendering  it  the  very 
model  of  a  Christian,  and  yet  not  to  be  con- 
sidered a  disciple,  a  learner  in  Jesus,  a 
qualified  subject  of  the  divine  kingdom! 
Yea,  Paul  and  Peter,  and  even  "  an  angel 
from  heaven  "  to  be  gainsayed  if  they  should 
venture  to  hint  such  a  thing!  Talk  of 
"madness,"  Dr.  Fuller,  talk  of  "obliquity 
of  mind,"  talk  of  "  profaning  the  tender  af- 
fections implanted  in  a  parent's  bosom,"  talk 
of  "  strange  fatuity,"  talk  of  "garbling"  and 
"perverting''  the  Scriptures,  but  heaven 
have  mercy  upon  the  teacher  of  salvation 
who  refuses  to  see  in  this  passage  the  divine 
recognition  in  "little  children"  of  all  the 
qualities  of  a  disciple  of  Jesus!  And  if 
little  children  have  all  the  qualities  which 
adorn  Christ's  true  disciples,  they  are  fit  to 
be  made  disciples,  and,  according  to  the  com- 
mission, it  is  our  duty,  our  solemn  duty  to 
baptize  them. 


304 

In  addition  to  this  it  is  an  immutable  truth, 
that  our  blessed  Saviour  has  commanded  his 
disciples  to  suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
him,  and  was  "much  displeased"  with  those 
who  busied  themselves  to  keep  them  from 
thus  coming;  Matt.  19  :  14,  Mark  10  :  13, 
14.  There  is  such  a  thing  then  as  <(  little 
children,"  "  young  children,"  (Luke,  Bre- 
phse,)  "neio  born  babes,"  coming  unto  Christ. 
It  is  useless  for  Baptists  to  suggest  philo- 
sophical objections.  Christ  says  it,  and  his 
words  are  not  to  be  revised  and  amended  by 
the  philosophies  of  ignorant  and  erring  men. 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  the  coining  of  babes 
to  Jesus.  This  is  "a  nail  in  a  sure  place," 
which  must  hold  even  to  the  day  of  doom. 
We  will  not  press  the  fact  that  the  phrase 
11  commg  to  Christ  "  signifies  the  mental  or 
moral  state  ol  becoming  a  disciple  of  Christ, 
and  indicates  all  the  qualities  of  discipleship. 
If  this  is  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  it  in 
this  place,  our  case  is  made  out,  that  infants 
are  capable  of  discipleship,  and  therefore  to 
be  baptized.  But  if  this  is  not  to  be  taken 
as  its   import  in  this  connection,  then  what 


305 

other  coming  to  Christ  is  there,  or  what  other 
coming  can  there  be,  but  that  which  is  ac- 
complished by  means  of  his  appointed  ordi- 
nances ?  Christ,  however,  has  appointed  no 
ordinances  exclusively  for  infants;  neither 
is  it  possible,  except  for  those  who  have 
passed  out  of  earliest  infancy,  to  come  to 
him  in  most  of  the  ordinances  he  has  ap- 
pointed. Infants  cannot  come  to  him  through 
the  preaching  of  the  Word.  Infants  cannot 
come  to  him  through  the  medium  of  their 
own  prayers  ;  neither  are  they  competent  to 
come  to  him  in  the  Holy  Supper.  There 
remains  then  hut  one  way  in  which  they  can 
come,  and  that  is  in  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism. And  to  say  that  infants  are  not  to  be 
baptized,  is  to  say  they  cannot  come  to  Christ, 
and  consequently  to  make  the  Son  of  God  a 
liar. 

But  there  is  another  very  remarkable  de- 
claration of  the  Saviour  in  connection  with 
this  subject,  which  sets  forth  the  capability 
of  infants  for  christian  discipleship,  if  possi- 
ble, in  a  still  stionger  light.  "Verily  I  say 
unto   you,"  says  he,  "  whosoever  shall  not 


306 

of  heaven  as  a  little 

I   not   enter  ti  '   Mark 

ur  pronounces  little 

a  not  only  as  having  all  the  qualities 

demanded   in  a  disciple,  but  as   actually  so 

::gdom,  and  as  ezc 

f  a  receiver  of  that  kingdom  in 

such   perfection,  that  unless   unregenerated 

line  children   again,  and  take  to 

them:?  g    susceptible 

and  teachable  disposition  of  infants,,  all  the 

sprinkling  or   immersion   in   the  world  will 

.em  a  part  in  the  kingdom  of 

at.  however  strange  it  may 

:tual 

i  .: "7  W '   "■:■ 

*  of  heaven  as  a  little 
shall:  ■."     -  ■  £   -•  ri  ye  he  came 

converted,  and  became  as  little  children,  ye 

f  heaven." 

momentous  words  !     How  they  exalt 

the   character    and   capabilities    of    babes, 


though   slumbering  on   the  bosoms  of  their 
mothers!     In  them  the  eve  of  ::. 


dorn  sees  all  that  he  desir. 

would   be  his   disciples.     And  yet  th: 

to  be  esteemed   by  men  as  w 

very  things  of  which  God  has  prone 

them    the    models !     Though  Jesus  r 

them  to  his  loving   hea: 

such  is  his  kingdom,  we  are  : 

•  n  appointed  sign   of  what  they  are  ! 
Though  the  Son  of  God  bid  them  we] 
to  his  arms  and  blessing  a     .    . 

bo  profess  to  be  his  foil 
repulse  them  as  unworthy  i  to  be 

rated  among  his  weakest  ar. 

Before  I  give  my  c 
so  traitorous   to   my  Lord.  "Let 
hand  forget  her  cunning  and  lei  my 
cleave  to  the  roof  of  my 


308 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Infants  included  in  "  alt  nations  "  to  be  dis- 
c/pled by  Baptism,  and  therefore  to  be 
baptized  —  Apostles  baptized  children — 
Meaning  o/oikos — JYota  Bene. 

The  candid  reader,  we  think,  must  agree, 
from  what  has  been  said,  that  infants  are 
capable  of  christian  discipleship,  and  that 
they  really  possess  the  very  perfection  and 
model  of  what  is  demanded  in  a  disciple  of 
Christ.  The  simple  concession  that  they 
are  subjects  of  salvation  establishes  that  they 
are  subjects  of  grace  sufficient  to  entitle 
them  to  be  marked  as  members  of  the  great 
household  of  the  redeemed.  The  words  of 
the  blessed  Saviour  himself  are  so  explicit 
on  this  point,  and  so  often  and  so  solemnly 
repeated,  that  for  any  man  to  deny  it  is  to 
array  himself  against  the  very  Son  of  God. 
And  if  infants  are  capable  of  discipleship, 
subjects  of  gospel  grace,  and  possessed  of 
qualities    making   them    models  of   what  a 


309 

disciple  of  Christ  must  be,  they  also,  with  a 
certainty  as  clear  as  demonstration,  come 
within  the  scope  and  letter  of  the  command 
of  Jesus  to  make  disciples  by  baptism,  and 
are  to  be  baptized.  We  cannot  conceive  of 
an  argument  on  any  subject  more  convincing 
or  irrefragable. 

But  besides  this,  the  command  is  given 
with  respect  to  "  all  nations ."  Who  ever 
heard  of  a  nation  or  community,  however 
small,  where  there  are  no  babes  ?  And  as 
Christ  commands  us  to  c<  make  disciples  of 
all  nations  "  by  baptism,  before  Baptists  can 
exclude  infants  from  that  command  they 
must  first  either  exclude  infants  from  all 
nations,  or  produce  a  counter  prohibition  from 
God  to  impose  violent  limitations  upon  the 
plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  Saviour's 
words.  The  thought  that  infants  are  not 
component  parts  of  all  nations  is  the  thought 
only  of  the  fool.  Where  then  is  the  specific 
limitation  to  words  as  comprehensive  as  the 
spread  and  continuance  of  the  race  ?  If 
God  has  any  where  given  such  a  limitation, 
the  record  of  it  may  be  found,  and  we  have 
27 


310 

a  right  to  see  it  and  examine  it,  and  are 
bound  to  hold  Christ's  words  in  their  plain- 
est and  most  natural  signification  until  that 
record  has  been  produced.  Let  it  be  forth- 
coming, and  we  will  respect  it  and  obey  it, 
even  under  the  necessity  of  maintaining  that 
the  blessed  Jesus,  in  the  last  solemn  words 
he  uttered  on  earth,  did  not  mean  exactly 
what  he  said.  But  so  long  as  men  fail,  as 
they  must  always  fail,  in  attempting  to  array 
the  Scriptures  against  the  baptizing  of  in- 
fants, let  no  man  expect  of  us  to  take  up  an 
alternative  which  reflects  so  unfavorably 
upon  the  adorable  Son  of  God.  In  all  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  inspired  volume 
there  is  not  one  syllable,  in  the  form  of 
command,  precept  explanation  or  caution, 
to  prevent  this  solemn  charge  from  extend- 
ing to  little  babes  as  well  as  to  men  in  the 
maturity  of  life.  And  when  we  consider 
that  it  was  given  to  Jews,  with  whom  it  was 
a  settled  thing  in  religious  matters  to  extend 
to  children  the  same  rites  and  ordinances 
enjoyed  by  themselves, — that  it  was  deliv- 
ered to  those  very  men  whom   its  Author 


311 

rebuked  in  so  much  displeasure  when  in  a 
mistaken  zeal  they  sought  to  prevent  child- 
ren from  being  brought  unto  him, — and  that 
he  had  in  the  most  explicit  and  impressive 
manner  previously  referred  to  little  children 
as  model  subjects  of  his  kingdom, — the  evi- 
dence is  perfectly  conclusive,  that  when  he 
said  " all  nations"  he  meant  what  he  said? 
and  that  it  is  his  will  that  all  the  constituents 
of  a  nation  that  can  by  any  means  be  made 
learners  in  him  should  be  regarded  as  right- 
ful subjects  of  baptism.  So  that  it  is  not 
without  solid  foundation  that  the  distin- 
guished Danish  Dr.  Martinsen  has  said, 
"  The  more  infant  baptism  prevails  in  the 
world,  the  more  are  the  words  of  the  Lord 
fulfilled,  that  the  nations  should  be  made 
disciples  by  baptism  and  instruction." 

But  if  all  this  does  not  satisfy  the  reader 
that  infants  are  included  in  the  command, 
we  have  another  argument  which  will  admit 
of  no  evasion.  All  must  agree  that  the  in- 
spired apostles  understood  the  scope  and 
nature  of  the  great  commission  the  ascend- 
ing Redeemer  delivered   to  them,  and  that 


312 

whatever  they  did  under  that  commission 
will  be  unquestionable  evidence  of  the  way 
in  which  they  understood  it.  Did  the  apos- 
tles then  baptize  children?  As  we  expect 
to  be  judged  by  the  all-knowing  God,  we 
believe  they  did,  and  that  the  evidence  of  it 
is  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  Though  they 
were  all  missionaries,  sent  out  among  unbe- 
lieving Jews  and  heathens,  surrounded  by 
circumstances  different  from  those  in  estab- 
lished christian  communities,  and  of  course 
not  baptizing  any  body  until  some  of  the 
adults,  with  whom  alone  they  could  begin, 
professed  their  willingness  to  become  disci- 
ples, we  yet  have  explicit  information  that 
they  did  baptize  entire  families — oikoi, 
houses — offspring  of  the  same  parents — child- 
ren, including  any  and  every  age.  In  Acts 
16  :  14,  15,  we  read  of  "a  certain  woman 
named  Lydia,  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened, 
that  she  attended  to  the  things  that  were 
spoken  of  Paul.  And  she  was  baptized,  and 
her  (oikos)  household."  In  the  same 
chapter  we  also  read  of  a  terrified  jailor, 
whom  Paul  directed  to  "  believe  on  the  Lord 


,313 

Jesus  Christ,"  promising  upon  these  condi- 
tions that  he  should  be  saved,  and  his  (oikos) 
house  ;  whereupon  he  "  was  baptized,  he  and 
all  his."  In  1  Cor.  1  :  1G,  Paul  declares, 
"  And  I  baptized  also  the  (oikon)  household 
of  Stephaxus."  In  Acts  10  :  — ,  we  read 
of  u  a  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God," 
whom  Peter  baptized  "with  all  his  (oiko) 
housed  In  Acts  18  :  8,  we  also  read  of 
"Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue," 
who  was  baptized  with  "  all  his  (oiko)  house." 
In  2  Tim.  1  :  16  and  4  :  19,  we  find  mention 
of  u  the  (oiko)  house  of  Onesiphorus  "  in  a 
way  which  leads  us  to  believe  that  all  its 
members  had  been  baptized,  and  that  men- 
tion, moreover,  made  only  for  their  father's 
sake.  Nor  is  there  any  good  reason  why 
the  families  of  Aristobulus  and  Narcissus 
(Rom.  16  :  10,  11)  should  not  also  be  in  the 
list  of  apostolic  household  baptisms. 

Here  then  are  eight  oikoi,  families,  four 
of  them  explicitly  said  to  have  been  baptized 
by  the  apostles ;  and  all  referred  to  as  chris- 
tian families,  and  therefore  certainly  not 
unbaptized.  Have  we  eight  instances  of 
27* 


314 

the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper? 
Not  half  that  number.  Have  we  eight 
cases  of  the  change  of  the  Jewish  into  the 
christian  Sabbath?  Perhaps  not  one  fourth 
of  that  number.  Yet  the  communion,  and 
this  change  of  day,  are  vindicated  by  apos- 
tolic practice  as  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. How  can  we  then  deny  that  the 
apostles  baptized  children  with  their  parents, 
when  it  is  established  by  a  series  of  instances 
more  numerous  than  can  be  found  in  support 
of  any  other  doctrine,  principle  or  practice 
handed  down  from  apostolic  times? 

Dr.  Fuller  thinks  that  Lydia's  "house- 
hold "  consisted  only  of  servants  and  such 
as  were  associated  with  her  in  conducting 
her  business,  and  that  the  "house"  of  the 
jailor  was  perhaps  similarly  constituted. 
But  we  deny  that  oikos,  when  used  as  in 
these  passages,  ever  signifies  servants  and 
attendants  in  the  New  Testament.  It  pri- 
marily denotes  blood  lineage — progeny — 
children.  "  The  house  (oikos)  of  Israel  " 
means  the  children  of  Israel ;  "  the  house  of 
David"  the   lineal   descendants  of  David; 


315 

"the  house  of  Judah"  the  progeny  of  Judah; 
and  not  the  servants  and  employees  of  Is- 
rael, David  and  Judah.  '■'  Oikos,"  says 
Aristotle,  "is  a  companionship  connected 
together  according  to  the  course  of  nature." 
"  The  first  social  connection,"  says  Cicero, 
"is  the  conjugal ;  then  that  of  children';  and 
these  constitute  a  D03ius — a  liouse  or  fam- 
ily."  "  I  know  Abraham,"  saith  the  Lord? 
"  that  he  will  command  his  children,  even 
his  house  (oiko)  after  him.  When  Joseph 
was  made  "  Governor  over  Egypt "  he  was 
certainly  made  master  of  all  Pharaoh's  ser- 
vants and  slaves;  and  when  it  is  added  that 
he  was  also  made  li  Governor  over  all  Pha- 
raoh's house,  (oikos,)  we  are  thereby  assured 
that  even  the  king's  own  children  were  put 
in  subjection  to  him.  Indeed  we  know  of 
not  one  single  case  in  the  New  Testament, 
in  the  Septuagint  or  in  all  the  Greek  clas- 
sics, where  the  word  oikos,  when  used  as  in 
these  accounts  of  household  baptisms,  does 
not  specifically,  directly  and  unequivocally 
refer  to  children,  and  for  the  most  part  to 
children  exclusively.     Talk  of  oikos  meaning 


316 

only  attendants  and  slaves!  Why,  every 
Greek  scholar  would  laugh  to  scorn  such 
an  idea,  and  utterly  despise  the  man  as  a 
fool  who  should  undertake  to  maintain  it. 
It  has  no  such  meaning.  Nor  is  it  more 
certain  that  the  word  dog  does  not  mean  a 
sheep  or  an  ass  than  that  oikos  never  means 
only  servants.  It  every  where  denotes  blood 
lineage,  the  fruit  of  conjugal  union  ;  and  if 
Dr.  Fuller  can  have  this  without  infants,  we 
would  call  the  scientific  world  to  come  and 
behold  the  greatest  wonder  that  has  been 
exhibited  since  the  creation.  Surely  we 
need  not  be  surprised  that  a  man  should  not 
find  infants  included  in  a  command  to  bap- 
tize "  all  nations,"  when  he  fails  to  discover 
them  among  the  fruits  of  those  methods  of 
procreation  determined  and  established  in 
our  nature  by  the  hand  that  made  us ! 

We  hold  that  oikos  means  the  fruit  of 
wedlock — progeny — children;  and  that  there 
can  be  no  oikos  without  children.  The  oikoi 
of  Lydia,  the  jailor,  Cornelius  and  Stephanus 
were  therefore  the  children  of  Lydia,  the 
jailor,  Cornelius  and  Stephanus.     And  as  by 


317 

children  we  mean  children,  it  remains  for 
Dr.  Fuller  to  show  that  these  were  adults 
before  he  can  set  aside  the  conclusion  that 
the  apostles  verily  baptized  children.  But 
although  he  has  all  the  force  of  the  laws 
of  language  and  all  the  conclusions  of  the 
most  every  day  observation  against  him,  he 
must  needs  make  the  attempt.  He  tells  us 
that  Lydia's  children  were  grown  men,  be- 
cause they  "are  expressly  declared  to  have 
been  brethren,  whom  the  apostles  saw  and 
comforted  "  when  released  from  prison  ;  (p. 
142.)  Did  ever  any  man  see  such  contu- 
macy and  such  determination  at  all  hazards 
to  carry  a  sectarian  dogma  ?  Let  the  reader 
but  examine  the  16th  chapter  of  Acts  and  he 
will  see  that  a  more  glaring  perversion  of 
God's  word  is  hardly  to  be  found.  Paul 
was  at  "  Derbe  and  Lystra."  He  there 
found  "  a  certain  disciple  named  Timothy. " 
"  Him  Paul  would  have  to  go  forth  with 
him."  And  "  when  they  (Paul  and  Silas  and 
Timothy)  had  gone  throughout  Phrygia  and 
the  region  of  Galatia,  they  passed  by  Misia 
and  came  down  to  Troas."  A  vision  appeared 


318 

to  Paul ;  and  after  he  had  seen  the  vision, 
Luke  says,  "We  (Paul,  Silas,  Timothy  and 
I,  Luke)  endeavored  to  go  into  Macedonia. 
Therefore,  loosing  from  Troas,  we  came  to 
Samothracia,  and  the  next  day  to  Neapolis, 
and  from  thence  to  Philippi."  a  And  on  the 
Sabbath  we  went  out  to  the  Proseucha,  and 
we  sat  down  and  spake  to  the  women  that 
resorted  thither.  .  .  Lydia  .  heard  us  . 
and  constrained  us  to  come  into  her  house 
and  abide  there."  Who  then  were  this  we 
and  us,  if  not  Paul,  Silas,  Timothy,  and 
Luke,  the  writer  of  the  account  ?  This  was 
the  company  journeying  together  and  which 
lodged  together  at  the  house  of  Lydia. 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,"  says  Luke,  "  as  we 
went  to  prayer  a  certain  damsel  possessed 
with  a  spirit  of  divination  met  us;  the  same 
followed  us.  .  But  Paul,  being  grieved,  cast 
out  the  spirit.  And  when  her  masters  saw 
that  the  hope  of  their  gains  was  gone,  they 
caught  Paul  and  Silas,  (not  Timothy  and 
Luke,)  .  laid  many  stripes  upon  them  and 
cast  them  into  prison."  Paul  and  Silas 
were  now  in  jail,  but  "  the  brethren"  Tim- 


319 

Othy  and  Luke  of  course,  continued  at  their 
lodgings  in  the  house  of  Lydia.  During  the 
night  God  heard  the  prayers  of  the  prisoners 
and  miraculously  struck  off  their  chains. 
"  And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  en- 
tered into  the  house  of  Lydia,  and  saw  "  the 
brethren.3*  What  brethren?  A  Sabbath 
school  child  would  not  miss  the  true  answer* 
Certainly  not  Lydia's  grown  up  sons;  for  it 
is  no  where  to  be  found  that  she  ever  had 
sons,  much  less  sons  grown  up  at  that  period 
of  her  life.  Who  then  were  the  parties 
abiding  in  Lydia's  house,  entitled  to  be  noted 
down  as  so  peculiarly  "  the  brethren  "  of 
Paul  and  Silas  ?  Unquestionably  their  com* 
panions  in  travel  and  fellow^missionaries  of 
the  cross,  Timothy  and  Luke. 

There  is  no  proof  then  that  Lydia's  child* 
ren  were  any  thing  but  children.  And  if 
even  the  youngest  of  them  was  only  less 
than  ten  years  of  age,  the  last  refuge  of  the 
Baptists  is  swept  away,  and  the  truth,  rising 
to  assert  its  rightful  empire,  proclaims  to  the 
four  winds  that  the  aposiles  did  baptize  child-' 
ren,  and   regarded  themselves  as  authorized 


3*0 

and  bound  to  do  so  under  their  commission. 
A  single  fact  like  this  is  invincible  in  our 
favor  against  all  abstract  or  analogical  rea- 
soning that  the  human  mind  shall  ever  breed. 
Dr,  Fuller  also  insinuates  that  the  jailor's 
children  were  not  children,  because  it  is 
said  that  "  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with 
all  his  house."  See  there,  says  he,  "  after 
all  these  babes  are  old  enough  to  know 
spiritual  joy  and  to  utter  praises  to  God !" 
Well,  be  it  so,  though  the  record  no  where 
says  it;  we  know  that  God  has  "perfected 
praise  '  out  of  the  months  of  "babes  and 
sucklings.'*  Tender  infancy  presents  no 
insuperable  impediment  to  it.  Jeremiah  was 
sancti(ied  before  he  was  born.  John  was 
"  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  even  from  his 
mother's  womb."  Baxter  loved  God  prior 
to  his  earliest  recollection.  And  if  Dr. 
Fuller  will  visit  some  of  the  Sunday  schools 
of  Baltimore  he  will  find  infant  classes  ut- 
tering praises  as  perfect  and  from  hearts  as 
pure  as  ever  honored  the  earthly  assemblies 
of  God's  worshipers.  And  if  the  jailor's 
babes  could  know  joy  and  utter  praise,  they 


m 

still  may  have  been  mere  "  babes  and  suck- 
lings," or  else  the  testimony  of  God  must 
give  place  to  the  narrow  conceits  of  man's 
philosophy. 

But,  says  Dr.  Fuller,  "such  infants  as 
these  I  shall  be  happy  to  baptize  every  day 
of  my  life."  Ah !  and  where  woUld  he 
get  the  authority  for  it  ?  From  the  com- 
mission ?  He  says  the  commission  utter- 
ly excludes  infants*  In  apostolic  prac- 
tice ?  He  holds  that  the  apostles  never 
baptized  any  but  adults.  By  what  right 
then  would  he  baptize  "  babes  and  suck- 
lings ?"  The  case  admits  of  but  one  alter- 
native. It  is  either  his  duty  or  it  is  not  his 
duty  to  baptize  all  such  infants  as  Jeremiah^ 
John,  Israel  and  Baxter,  if  such  is  his 
duty,  then  there  must  be  divine  authority 
for  baptizing  some  babes,  and  his  whole  po- 
sition is  subverted.  And  if  such  is  not  his 
duty,  then  he  must  agree  that  there  is  more 
authority  to  baptize  an  old  conjurer,  hard- 
ened in  sin  by  the  confirmed  habit  of  many 
years,  and  actually  4;  in  the  gall  of  bitterness 
and  the  bonds  of  iniquity,"  than  there  is  for 
29 


328 

giving  the  sign  of  consecration  to  Christ  to 
those  il  babes  and  sucklings  "  out  of  whose 
mouths  God  himself  has  perfected  praise. 
Dr.  Fuller  may  take  either  side  of  the  di- 
lemma j  and  one  side  he  must  take,  and  his 
refusal  to  baptize  the  children  of  believers 
shows  itself  to  be  an  utter  absurdity. 

The  record,  however,  says  nothing  about 
"spiritual  joy"  or  "praises  to  God"  in 
connection  with  the  jailor's  children.  The 
words  are.  explicit  that  he  himself  did  the 
rejoicing,  believing  in  God."  This  he  did5 
not  in  the  absence  of  his  family,  but  "with 
ail  his  house;"  those  old  enough  sympathiz- 
ing with  him  in  the  joy  of  his  marvelous 
deliverance  from  impending  death,  and  the 
youngest  not  excluded  from  the  scene  of  his 
festivity.  Nay,  if  the  jailor's  children  were 
adults,  how  did  it  happen  that  Paul  prom- 
ised salvation  to  them  all  on  the  condition 
of  their  father's  faith  ?  The  apostle  said  to 
the  jailor  alone,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy 
(oikos)  children"  Upon  the  Baptist  theory 
let   Dr.  Fuller  explain  this  if  he   can,  and 


323 

tell  us  whether,  when  he  immerses  an  aged 
father,  he  thereupon  promises  salvation  to 
all  his  grown  up  sons  and  daughters?  No, 
no,  Dr.  Fuller,  your  jocularity  with  Dr. 
Kurtz  will  not  relieve  the  stern  difficulties 
of  your  forced  interpretation  of  this  passage. 
Admit  that  the  children  of  believers  are 
entitled  to  baptism,  and  every  thing  is  ex- 
plained ;  deny  this,  and  the  whole  case  is 
for  ever  inexplicable.  The  Bible  says  that 
the  jailor's  children  were  baptized  along 
with  himself,  and  that  salvation  was  prom- 
ised to  them  on  the  ground  of  their  father's 
faith;  and  the  double  inference  is  therefore 
inevitable,  that  they  were  not  of  an  age  to 
make  a  christian  profession  for  themselves 
and  that  the  apostles  did  actually  baptize 
children. 

As  to  the  children  of  Stephanus,  Dr.  Ful- 
ler holds  that  they  were  all  adults  when 
baptized  ;  first,  because  it  is  said  that  "  many 
of  the  Corinthians  believed  and  were  bap- 
tized ;"  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  Ste- 
phanus was  a  Corinthian,  he  and  his  house 
(oikosj  being  "  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia  ;?J 


324 

and  second,  because  it  is  said  of  them  that 
they  had  "addicted  themselves  to  the  minis- 
try of  the  saints."  But  great  changes  occur 
in  growing  families  in  the  course  of  eight  or 
ten  years.  The  boy  in  the  year  51,  when 
Stephanus  and  his  house  were  baptized, 
would  naturally  be  a  man  in  the  year  59, 
when  this  record  was  made.  The  eldest  of 
the  children  of  Stephanus  may  have  been  10 
or  15  years  old  when  they  were  baptized, 
whilst  others  may  have  been  mere  babes; 
and  yet  it  might  easily  be  said  of  them,  ten 
years  afterward,  that  they  had  shown  much 
kindness  to  their  fellow  Christians.  David 
slew  Goliah  and  put  the  Philistine  army  to 
flight  when  but  a  ruddy  youth.  Samuel 
served  as  a  minister  in  the  tabernacle  when 
but  a  little  boy.  Our  Sabbath  schools  con- 
tain many  a  child  entitled  to  be  called  an 
angel  of  mercy  for  its  good  deeds  toward  the 
poor  and  suffering.  And  why  could  not 
these  children,  especially  under  a  pious 
father's  guidance,  some  of  whom  were  now 
pretty  well  grown  up,  addict  themselves  to 
ministering   unto   the   saints,   although    ten 


325 

years  previous  some  of  them  were  no  more 
than  babes?  Does  Dr.  Fuller  hold  that 
"once  an  infant  always  an  infant,"  and 
maintain  that  because  this  family  was  noted 
for  its  kindness  in  A.  D.  60,  not  one  of  its 
members  could  have  been  under  ten  or 
twelve  years  old  in  A.  D.  50  ?  If  not,  then 
all  the  stress  which  he  lays  upon  the  chris- 
tian activity  of  these  "  first  fruits  of  Achaia," 
ten  years  after  they  were  baptized,  must 
pass  for  nothing ;  and  we  are  left  to  believe 
that  the  children  of  Stephanus,  when  bap- 
tized by  Paul,  were  no  more  than  children. 
Indeed  the  very  manner  in  which  we  come 
to  know  any  thing  about  this  baptism  is 
conclusive  evidence  that  even  so  long  after 
the  baptizing  had  been  performed  these 
children  were  yet  too  young  to  be  of  any 
material  force  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church. 
Factions  had  sprung  up  at  Corinth.  One 
was  for  Paul,  another  for  Apollos  and  a 
third  for  Peter.  A  letter  is  written  to  re- 
buke these  disorders.  Paul,  the  writer  of 
it,  sets  himself  to  show  the  absurdity  of  such 
a  thing  as  a  Paul  party  in  that  Church.  He 
28* 


326 

tells  them  that  he  had  been  crucified  for  no 
body,  and  that  with  his  own  hand  he  had  not 
even  baptized  any  but  Crispus  and  Gaius, 
who  do  not  seem  to  have  taken  the  general 
infection.  These  were  the  only  men  of  in- 
fluence who  could  so  much  as  claim  him  as 
their  baptizer.  And  then,  with  a  certain 
tardiness,  as  if  he  were  undecided  as  to 
whether  it  would  be  worth  while  to  mention 
it,  he  remarks,  "  However,  I  baptized  also  the 
household  of  Stephanies"  intimating  that  they 
were  hardly  to  be  taken  into  account  on  this 
question,  as  they  were  not  of  sufficient  influ- 
ence or  age  to  be  much  support  to  any  party. 
He  first  passes  them  altogether,  "  I  thank 
God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you  hut  Crispus 
and  Gaius."  We  demand  of  Dr.  Fuller  the 
reason  of  this  total  omission.  Had  Paul 
forgotten  ?  Can  an  inspired  man,  recording 
his  own  official  acts,  forget  ?  There  is  no 
explanation,  and  there  can  be  none,  except 
upon  the  ground  that  these  children  of  Ste- 
phanus  were  yet  minors,  even  eight  or  ten 
years  after  their  baptism,  and  for  that  reason 
quite  out  of  the  question  which  the  apostle 


327 

had  before  him.  If  they  had  been  adults 
they  were  just  as  likely  to  be  Paulians,  be. 
cause  Paul  had  baptized  them,  as  Crispu* 
and  Gaius;  and  it  could  only  be  because 
they  were  still  too  young  to  have  any  thing 
to  do  with  these  party  disputes  that  Paul 
esteemed  it  hardly  worth  while  to  refer  to 
them  in  such  a  connection.  If  this  does  not 
prove  that  children  were  among  the  subjects 
of  apostolic  baptism  we  know  nothing  about 
the  force  of  evidence. 

We  therefore  hold  Dr.  Fuller  to  the  plain 
and  direct  meaning  of  the  word  oikos.  It 
denotes  children.  And  when  we  have  the 
unequivocal  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  that 
the  apostles  did  baptize  oikoi,  before  the 
dogma  of  the  Baptists  can  stand,  they  must 
prove  that  the  members  of  these  oikoi  were 
all  adults.  We  have  the  word  which,  as 
certainly  as  any  word  in  any  language, 
comprehends  infants;  and  we  are  therefore 
bound  to  hold  that  infants  are  included  "and 
were  baptized  until  the  most  unmistakable 
proof  to  the  contrary  has  been  produced. 
Such  proof  has  never  been  produced.     A 


328 

book,  written  about  thirty  years  ago,  to 
prove  that  infants  were  included  in  the  oikoi 
baptized  by  the  apostles,  was  submitted  to 
the  Baptists  of  Britain  with  a  challenge  for 
their  refutation.  Years  passed,  but  no  refu- 
tation was  attempted.  The  book  was  even 
submitted  to  a  Baptist  association,  with  the 
most  respectful  solicitation  that  they  would 
either  admit  the  truth  of  its  positions  or  have 
them  refuted ;  but  the  request  was  answered 
with  a  formal  resolution  to  disregard  it! 
And  from  that  day  to  the  present  moment 
Taylor's  Facts  and  Evidences  on  the  Subjects 
of  Christian  Baptism  remain  unanswered, 

AND  WITHOUT  AN  ATTEMPT  AT  AN  ANSWER,  by 

any  Baptist  on  either  side  of  the  Atlantic  ocean. 

If  the  baptizing  of  infants  then  is  to  be 
denounced  as  such  a  horrible  crime,  let 
Baptists  first  show  us  how  they  exempt 
God's  inspired  apostles  from  the  dreadful 
crimination  by  answering  the  invincible  po- 
sitions of  that  learned  advocate  of  the  truth 
whom  Dr.  Fuller  mentions  only  to  call  "  the 
silly  editor  of  Calmet." 

Indeed,  with  the  facts  before  us,  that  oikos 


means  family,  and  that  the  apostles  baptized 
certainly  not  less  than  eight  such  families, 
the  plainest  common  sense  will  infer  with 
the  firmest  confidence  that  they  must  have 
baptized  infants.  Take  eight  families  at  a 
venture  in  the  street,  or  eight  pews  contain- 
ing  families  in  a  place  of  worship,  and  in  all 
of  them  not  to  find  one  child  under  ten  years 
of  age  would  be  a  circumstance  sufficiently 
strange  to  be  heralded  from  sea  to  sea,  as 
showing  that  the  world  is  coming  to  an  end 
sure  enough.  Take  the  average  number  of 
children  in  a  family  to  be  six ;  these  eight 
families  would  include  forty-eight  children  ; 
and  yet  among  forty-eight  children  of  par- 
ents not  past  the  busy  activities  of  middle 
life,  not  to  find  one  child  under  eight  or  ten 
years  of  age  would  be  a  prodigy.  Who  can 
believe  it?  Who  then  can  doubt  that  the 
apostles  baptized  infants? 

As  the  preceding  chapters  of  our  Review 
were  appearing  in  the  Lutheran  Observer, 
another  attempt  was  made  by  our  Baptist 
friends  to  excite  prejudice  against  us  and 
our  articles.     The  full  capacity  of  the  Bap- 

s 


330 

cist  Press  in  Baltimore,  was  called  into  play 
to  bespatter  us  with  sundry  sorts  of  bilious 
secretions  which  wounded  fanaticism  is  apt 
to  generate,  whilst  not  one  single  word  is 
said  in  the  way  of  an  answer  to  our  argu- 
ments. We  give  the  reader  what  notice  we 
bestowed  upon  the  amiable  production.  If 
our  brethren  of  the  True  Union  do  not  mus- 
ter better  support  for  their  cause,  alas  for 
the  prospect  before  them  ! 

N.  B.  It  is  not  a  little  amusing  to  see 
how  our  Baptist  friends  are  being  affected 
by  our  Review,  and  what  demonstrations 
they  are  making  with  regard  to  it.  "  The 
True  Union,''  a  Baptist  paper  of  Baltimore, 
honors  us  with  its  special  attention  a  second 
time,  whilst  protesting  that  we  "  scarce  de- 
serve even  a  passing  notice!"  Its  editor  is 
in  an  alarming  fit  of  pugnacity  over  our  ar- 
ticles, and  yet  insists  that  they  "  are  mere 
reproductions  of  the  weapons  used  by  better 
men!!"  He  thinks  our  positions  wholly 
untenable  and  our  arguments  mere  "sophis- 
tries." and  yet  answers  them  only  by  pro- 
nouncing us  a  "a  sloul  slanderer, "  " setting 


8.1  defiance  all  the  laws  of  God  and  man,5' 
a  "forger  of  wholesale  falsehood  to  injure 
the  Baptists,"  and  simply  u  as  destitute  of 
heart  religion  as  a  bitter  fountain  is  of  sweet 
water !  !  !"  All  this  is  doubtless  very  re- 
freshing to  his  patrons  just  at  this  particular 
time,  as  it  must  be  to  all  interested  in  this 
debate. 

A  few  weeks  since  we  suggested  to  "The 
Tru<?  Union  "  and  its  friends  a  short  "  cate* 
ehism"  to  which  we  solicited  and  the  public 
expected  a  reply  when  they  should  have  oc- 
casion to  refer  to  us  airain.  The  concluding 
questions  of  that  catechism  related  to  some 
interesting  particulars  and  went  directly  to 
some  of  the  points  between  us,  and  it  is  a 
little  surprising  that  they  have  ventured  upon 
this  new  outburst  without  the  least  attempt 
to  settle  up  the  old  account.  It  may  be  that 
they  have  good  reasons  for  thus  dodging  the 
issue,  whilst  personal  invective  and  vituper- 
ation are  substituted  for  argument;  but  it 
would  be  well  to  have  the  omission  ex- 
plained, lest  readers  should  take  up  the 
notion  that  they  cannot,  or  have  not  the  mag- 


332 

naEtimity   to  answer  the   few  questions  we 
gave  them. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  our  articles 
are  all  defensive.  We  are  replying  to  an 
attack  made  upon  us  and  the  great  body  of 
the  Church.  And  it  looks  badly  for  men  to* 
fly  into  a  passion  over  what  they  themselves 
have  occasioned.  Spectators  may  perhaps 
infer  that  these  assailants  either  did  not 
count  the  cost,  or  that  their  resources  are 
near  the  end.  Now  for  the  public  to  take 
up  any  such  impressions  would  certainly  do 
the  Baptists  quite  as  much  "  injury  "  as  that 
anticipated  from  our  alleged  "forgeries." 
Let  the  editor  of  "  The  True  Union  "  there- 
fore profit  by  these  hints  and  make  the  ne- 
cessary emendations  hereafter. 


333 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Testimony  of  the  early  Fathers — Augustine — 
Origen — Tertullian — lrenceus — Justin — 
Modern  Authors — Outli?ies  of  other  argu- 
ments. 

To  what  has  been  said  in  proof  that  the 
apostles  baptized  infants  we  will  yet  add  the 
testimony  of  the  early  fathers. 

It  is  certain,  from  their  own  testimony, 
that  the  apostles  were  at  great  pains  to  es- 
tablish means  of  conveying  their  directions, 
injunctions  or  traditions  to  succeeding  gener- 
ations. Peter  says,  "  I  will  endeavor,  that 
after  my  decease,  you  make  mention  of 
these  things,"  and  thereby  perpetuate  the 
remembrance  of  them  ;  2  Epistle  1  :  15. 
Paul  says,  "  The  things  which  thou  hast 
heard  of  me  (dia)  for  the  purpose  of  instruct- 
ing many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou 
to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach 
others  also  ;"  2  Tim.  2  :  2.  With  these 
29 


334 

facts  before  us,  all  must  admit  that  the  testi- 
mony of  the  men  who  lived  near  the  apostolic 
age  must  be  of  very  great  weight  in  helping 
to  decide  what  was  apostolic  practice.  It  is 
useless  to  argue  a  point  so  self-evident. 

It  is  also  agreed,  even  by  the  most  rabid 
railers  against  infant  bapiism,  that  this  has 
been  an  established  thing  in  all  the  great 
divisions  of  the  Church  since  the  fourth 
century.  Augustine  flourished  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  fourth  century,  and  his  testi- 
mony is  direct  to  the  point,  that  the  baptizing 
of  infants  was  then  the  common  practice, 
and  that  it  was  apostolica  traditio — a  thing 
derived  from  the  apostles.  Chrysostom  lived 
at  the  same  time  and  left  a  similar  testimony. 
A  half  generation  earlier  lived  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  who  heartily  shames  the  mother 
who  hesitated  to  bring  her  child  to  be  bap. 
tized  because  of  its  tender  age,  urging  that 
"  Hannah  consecrated  Samuel  to  God  before 
his  birth  and  devoted  him  to  the  priesthood 
as  soon  as  he  was  born,"  and  that  "so 
children  should  be  baptized  in  their  tenderest 
age,  though  having  yet  no  idea  of  perdition 


335 

or  grace.  About  the  year  2")0  there  lived 
a  certain  minister  by  the  name  of  Fidus, 
who  was  somewhat  squeamish  about  bap- 
tizing new-born  babes,  because  he  was  ex- 
pected to  kiss  them  after  baptizing  them. 
He  therefore  brought  it  before  a  council  of 
sixty-six  bishops  to  decide  whether  baptism, 
for  the  sake  of  decency,  ought  not  to  be  de- 
nied to  infants  until  after  they  were  eight  days 
old.  The  question  shows  at  once  that  infant 
baptism  was  then  the  common  practice  ;  and 
the  council,  with  the  martyr  Cyprian  at  its 
head,  at  once  unanimously  declared  that 
"the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  are  to  be  de- 
nied to  none  from  the  moment  he  is  born,'* 
and  that  as  baptism  is  not  denied  to  the 
greatest  offenders  when  they  come  to  believe, 
so  it  certainly  is  not  to  be  arbitrarily  with- 
held from  a  new-born  babe,  which  has  no 
crimes. 

Origen  was  born  in  185  and  died  in  254. 
He  was  a  distinguished  man  and  possessed 
many  uncommon  advantages.  His  father, 
grandfather  and  great-grandfather  all  were 
Christians.     At  the  most  moderate  reckoning 


336 

his  great-grandfather  lived  within  twelve 
years  of  the  death  of  Mark  and  about  twenty 
years  cotemporaneous  with  the  apostle  John. 
For  nearly  a  hundred  years  the  Origen 
family  had  lived  with  the  apostles,  and  their 
immediate  successors,  and  the  other  "  faith- 
ful men,''  some  of  whom  must  yet  have  been 
alive  in  Origen's  time.  He  also  traveled 
extensively,  visited  various  apostolic  church- 
es and  resided  in  many  of  them,  in  order  the 
most  fully  to  inform  himself  respecting  what- 
ever accounts  of  Christ  and  his  apostles 
were  still  preserved.  And  it  is  simply  im- 
possible, under  such  circumstances,  that  the 
practice  of  the  Church,  derived  from  the 
apostles,  in  a  matter  of  daily  occurrence, 
could  have  been  forgotten,  or  suffered  such  a 
radical  change,  without  his  having  been 
aware  of  it.  And  yet  he  testifies,  <c  The 
Church  received  from  the  apostles  the  in- 
junction (traditio)  to  give  baptism  even  to 

INFANTS,  ACCORDING    TO   THE    SAYING    OF    OTJR 

Lord  concerning  infants;5'  Orig.  in  Rom., 
lib.  5,  oap.  6,  p.  543. 

A  little  earlier  than  Origen  lived  Tertul- 


337 

Han,  who  was  the  first  opposer  of  infant 
baptism  that  has  ever  been  heard  of.  But 
his  very  opposition  proves  that  it  was  a 
common  thing  in  his  day.  He  certainly 
would  not  have  undertaken  to  wage  war 
against  a  mere  phantom.  No  sane  man 
would  preach  reform  in  a  thing  that  never 
existed.  And  yet,  as  early  as  the  conclusion 
of  the  second  century,  within  eighty  years 
of  the  time  of  the  apostles,  we  find  him  in- 
veighing against  the  baptizing  of  infants  as 
the  great  defect  of  the  age,  and  therefore  a 
custom  as  wide-spread  as  Christendom  itself. 
At  that  period  men  were  still  living  who 
were  born  before  the  apostles  all  were  dead. 
And  how  does  it  happen  that  in  one  lifetime 
from  the  apostles  a  practice  which  Baptists 
tell  us  is  such  a  dreadful  apostacy  from 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  example  of 
his  inspired  servants,  should  thus  have  es- 
tablished itself  in  every  church  all  over  the 
christian  world?  If  this  was  an  innovation 
— if  it  was  so  contrary  to  apostolic  injunc- 
tion and  example — if  it  was  the  introduction 
of  such  a  dreadful  scourge,  at  war  with  all 
29* 


338 

the  inculcations  of  the  Son  of  God, — where 
was   John    the    apostle,    and    Timothy  and 
Titus,  and  the  "  faithful  men,  able  to  teach 
others    also?     Where    was    Polycarp,  and 
Ireneeus,  and   Barnabas,  and  Hermas,  that 
not  one  of  them  ever  rose  up  to  rebuke  and 
expose  the  delusion  of  those  who  would  thus 
forsake    the    commandment  of   God   for  an 
ordinance  of  man  ?     Indeed  the  very  argu- 
ments which   Tertullian   employed   against 
infant  baptism  show  that  he  himself  consid- 
ered it  impossible  to  deny  its  apostolic  origin 
and  felt  all  the  time  that  he  was  laboring  to 
introduce  a  new  practice.     He  believed  that 
baptism  was  the  washing  away  of  sins;  and 
his  great  argument  was,  that   it  should  be 
delayed  until  the  periods  of  greatest  tempta- 
tion had  passed,  lest  by  sinning  after  baptism 
there   would   be   found    no   more  remission. 
This  was  the  foundation  of  all  his  opposition, 
and  led  him  to  oppose  the  baptism  of  unmar- 
ried grown  people  as  well  as  little  children. 
But  if  the  baptizing  of  infants  was  an  anti- 
christian   innovation,  there  was  another  ar- 
gument within  his  reach,  and  which  he  must 


\ 


339 

needs  have  hit  upon,  far  more  conclusive 
than  this.  Why  did  he  not  brand  the  prac- 
tice as  a  novelty  and  fiction  of  the  day  ? 
Why  did  he  not  declare  it  to  be  a  thing 
unknown  to  the  apostles  and  apostolic 
churches  ?  Why  did  he  not  say  that  it  was 
not  so  from  the  beginning?  If  it  was  an 
innovation  there  were  men  then  living  within 
whose  recollection  it  was  introduced.  Why 
then  did  he  not  appeal  to  them  and  say  :  The 
traditions  of  the  apostles  were  delivered  to 
your  grandfathers,  ask  them,  for  they  know 
and  will  tell  you  that  baptism  was  never 
designed  for  infants?  Such  an  argument 
would  have  been  conclusive.  It  would  have 
ended  the  question  and  given  triumph  to  his 
opposition.  Why  did  he  not  use  it?  It  is 
evident  that  he  could  not.  And  the  simple 
fact  that  he  passes  it  in  silence,  reasoning 
only  from  his  own  principles,  shows  that 
anli-pedobaptism  was  no  stronger  in  its  re- 
sources  then  than  now.  and  that  the  baptizing 
of  infants  is  a  practice  as  certainly  derived 
from  the  apostles  as  the  church  itself. 

Polycarp  was  the  pupil  of  the  apostle  John, 


340 

and  IrencDUs  was  the  disciple  of  Polycarp. 
At  an  advanced  age  Irenseus  says  of  his 
teacher,  "I  remember  his  discourses  to  the 
people  concerning  the  conversations  he  had 
with  John  the  apostle  and  others  who  had 
seen  the  Lord;  how  he  rehearsed  their  dis- 
courses, and  what  he  heard  them  that  were 
eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  of  Life  say  of 
our  Lord  and  of  his  miracles  and  doctrine." 
This  shows  that  Polycarp  had  used  his  op. 
portunities.  He  was  himself  master  of  what- 
ever was  to  be  known.  He  had  been  care- 
ful to  tell  all  that  he  knew  of  our  Lord,  of 
the  apostles,  and  of  their  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice. These  discourses  had  made  a  deep 
and  unfading  impression  on  the  mind  of 
Irenceus.  And  Irenseus  was  yet  a  living 
teacher  when  Tertullian  broached  his  doc- 
trine for  the  delay  of  baptism  until  the 
season  of  severest  temptation  was  past.  If 
infant  baptism  had  not  been  sanctioned  by 
the  example  of  the  apostles,  Irenaeus  must 
have  known  it,  and  Tertullian  might  have 
appealed  to  him  and  settled  the  question. 
Or  if  Tertullian's  doctrine  had  had  apostolio 


341 

sanction,  Irenoeus  certainly  could  not  have 
been  ignorant  of  it,  and  would  have  support- 
ed the  attempted  reformation  of  his  neighbor. 
But  the  teachings  of  Tertullian  were  dead- 
born  and  fell  lifeless  upon  the  ear  of  the 
Church. 

Nay,  Irenceus,  so  far  from  presenting  in- 
fant baptism  as  opposed  to  the  practice  of 
the  apostles  and  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  has 
left  a  passage  on  record  which,  though  much 
debated,  supports  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism against  all  the  ingenuity  and  learning 
that  have  been  marshaled  to  break  its  force, 
and  which  assigns  it  a  place  in  the  very 
marrow  of  the  gospel.  "  Christ"  says  he, 
"  came  to  save  all — all  who  by  hdi  are  re- 
born of  God,  INFANTS,,  little  ones, 
children,  youths  and  persons  of  mature  age; 
therefore  he  passed  through  these  several 
ages."  The  relevancy  of  this  passage  rests 
upon  the  phrase  "  reborn  of  God" — renas* 
cilnter  in  Deum."  We  maintain  that  it  refers 
to  baptism,  and  that  Irenceus  here  recognizes 
the  baptism  of  "  infants,  little  ones  and 
children"  as  well  as  persons  of  mature  age, 


342 

Baptists  insist  that  it  means  "spiritual  re- 
generation," "conversion  to  God,"  "  moral 
renewal  in  Christ."  Dr.  Fuller  thinks  that 
"Prof.  Sears  has  settled  for  ever  this  matter 
by  an  elaborate  investigation  of  the  work.9 
of  Irennsus."  What  Mr.  Sears  has  said  we 
are  not  informed;  but  we  have  before  us 
Dr.  Chase's  tract  on  the  subject,  which  Dr. 
Fuller  pronounces  "most  learned"  and  found- 
ed upon  the  "reading  and  re-reading  of  ev- 
ery line  of  all  the  extant  works  of  Irenseus." 
And  if  Prof.  Sears  has  done  as  much  toward 
the  settlement  of  the  matter  as  Dr.  Chase,  it 
is  in  a  different  direction  from  that  supposed 
by  either  of  them.  After  all  his  "  elaborate 
investigation."  Dr.  Chase  says,  "  I  do  not 
hesi.ate  to  admit  that  Irenseus  sometimes 
speaks  of  regeneration  as  being  connected  with 
baptism."  We  also  learn  from  this  tract 
that  lrenaeus  calls  the  commission  to  make 
disciples  by  baptism  "the  authority  of  re- 
generation unto  God;"  not  the  power  to 
renew  men's  spiritual  nature,  but  the  right 
to  administer  baptism.  This  too  is  precisely 
the  phrase  used  in  our  quotation.     In  the 


343 

same  tract  we  also  find  that  Irenseus  calls 
"the  one  healing  remedy  by  which  our  sins 
are  removed,"  "  logiko  baptismata — a  dis- 
criminate or  proper  baptism"  The  Gnostics, 
who  taught  a  salvation  by  mere  internal  il- 
lumination, he  denounced  as  "  men  sent  by 
Satan  to  deny  the  baptism  of  regeneration  unto 
God."  The  baptismal  applicaiin  of  water 
to  the  body  he  calls  the  "regeneration  of  the 
flesh.''1  How  then  dare  Dr.  Fuller  say,  that 
when  Trenseus  speaks  of  infants  being  "re- 
born unto  God  "  or  "  regenerated  of  God" 
he  means  spiritual  renovation  to  the  entire 
exclusion  of  baptism  ?  Dr.  Chase  expressly 
testifies  that,  "in  some  degree  at  least,  he 
(Irenseus)  confounded  the  sign  with,  the  thing 
signified — confounded  baptism  with  rege?iera- 
tion ;"  and  if  he  confounded  them  at  all, 
where  is  the  evidence  that  he  viewed  them 
distinct  from  each  other  in  this  quotation? 
Our  opponents  themselves  being  witnesses, 
Irenseus  over  and  over  again,  in  multiform 
profusion,  calls  baptism  regeneration,  our 
renatus  in  Deum,  our  re-birth  to  God ;  and 
when  he  speaks  of  "  infants,  and  little  ones, 


344 

and  children,  and  youths,  and  persons  of 
mature  age,"  all  "re-born  of  God  "  to  salva- 
tion in  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  useless  for  Bap- 
tists or  any  body  else  to  come  in  to  tell  us 
that  the  passage  has  no  allusion  to  baptism. 
But  suppose  we  take  the  Baptist  theory, 
that  the  phrase  means  spiritual  regeneration, 
conversion  to  God  and  moral  renewal  in 
Christ.  Will  that  take  from  the  passage  its 
testimony  in  favor  of  infant  baptism?  Can 
we  put  asunder  what  God  hath  joined  to- 
gether ?  If  "infants,  and  little  ones,  and 
children"  are  spiritually  regenerated,  con- 
verted to  God  and  renewed  in  Christ,  and 
Irenceus  looked  upon  them  in  this  lighr, 
would  or  could  he  have  consistently  denied 
to  them  the  outward  sign  and  sacrament  of 
these  sublime  spiritual  transactions?  If 
infants  are  the  subjects  of  all  these  inward 
experiences,  and  are  "  re  born  of  God,"  are 
they  not  disciples  of  Christ,  and  to  be  marked 
as  disciples  according  to  the  Saviour's  com- 
mand ?  So  that  whether  Irenrcus  meant 
spiritual  regeneration  or  not,  baptism  is  in- 
evitably implicated  and  goes  along  with  the 


345 

meaning  of  the  phrase  as  cer'ainly  as  the 
shadow  follows  the  substance.  Dr.  Neander 
says  that  "in  Irenccus  baptism  and  regener- 
ation arc  intimately  connected,"  and  that 
"it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  term  re- 
generation  can  be  employed,  in  reference  to 
this  age,  to  denote  any  thing  else  than  bap- 
tism." He  therefore  regards  this  passage 
as  presenting  direct  and  incontrovertible 
proof  of  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  in 
the  time  of  Irenscus.  But  if  this  regenera- 
tion (renascunter  in  Deitm)  does  not  denote 
baptism,  it  certainly  does  denote  every  thing 
that  can  entitle  a  man  to  baptism.  In  either 
case  "  infants  and  little  ones  '  are  designated 
as  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ;  and  that  by 
a  man  of  God  who  received  the  apostolic 
traditions  from  a  companion  and  pupil  of 
him  who  lay  closest  on  the  Saviour's  heart. 
Can  any  one  doubt  then  as  to  the  views  and 
practices  of  the  apostles  on  this  subject  ? 

Justin  Martyr  lived  still  nearer  to  the  time 

of  the   apostles.     In   one   of  his  Apologies, 

written  about   the   year   148,  he  says  there 

were   among  Christians  in   his   time  many 

30 


346 

persons  of  both  sexes,  some  sixty  and  some 
seventy  years  old,  who  had  been  made  disci- 
ples to  Christ  from  their  infancy,  and  con- 
tinued undefiled  all  their  lives.  If  these 
persons  were  made  disciples  in  infancy,  they 
were  baptized  in  infancy.  If  they  were 
baptized  but  twenty  years  before  Justin  was 
born,  they  were  baptized  before  all  the 
apostles  were  dead  ;  and  we  thus  have  in- 
fant baptism  carried  up  to  the  very  life-time 
of  the  apostles.  And  if  infant  baptism  was 
practiced  whilst  the  apostles  yet  lived,  who 
can  say  that  it  was  without  apostolic  sanc- 
tion 1  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  Justin  in  this 
passage  does  not  allude  to  baptism.  But  as 
one  assertion  is  as  good  in  the  way  of  proof 
as  another,  we  say  he  does  refer  to  baptism, 
and  in  the  very  words  of  the  commission. 
And  Dr.  Neander  says  that  he  here  "  beyond 
question  refers  to  baptism."  Hov  indeed 
can  infants  be  made  disciples  to  Christ,  ac- 
cording to  the  commission,  but  by  baptism? 
Dr.  Fuller  professes  to  quote  assertions 
from  sundry  modern  authors,  to  the  effect 
that  there  were   no  infant  baptisms  in  the 


347 

first  two  centuries.  We  have  not  time  to 
point  out  the  perversions  to  be  found  in  this 
list.  A  number  of  writers  have  asserted  as 
he  says.  The  first  was  Salmasius,  a  French, 
critic,  who  died  in  1653.  He  was  after- 
wards quoted  by  Suicer.  And  the  authori- 
ties of  these  names  has  misled  other  authors. 
But  no  thorough  investigator  of  the  original 
sources  of  evidence,  so  far  as  we  know,  has 
ever  taken  such  a  position.  Vossius,  Luth- 
er, Gerhard,  Baier,  Chemnitz,  Quenstedt, 
Forbes,  Hammond,  Walker,  Dupin,  Bing- 
ham and  Wall, — names  that  will  stand  on 
this  subject  against  any  in  modern  Christen- 
dom,— all  take  the  ground  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  a  thing  warranted  in  the  Scriptures 
of  truth  and  handed  down  to  us  from  the 
times  of  the  apostles. 

We  need  go  no  further.  Jesus  commands 
us  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  triune  name.  He  himself  has 
declared  infants  capable  of  becoming  disci- 
ples and  as  furnishing  the  very  model  of 
discipleship.  In  every  neighborhood,  in  all 
nations,  we  find  infants.     Inspiration  informs 


348 

us  that  the  apostles  baptized  families.  We 
trace  the  baptizing  of  infants  back  in  history 
into  the  very  life-time  of  the  apostles.  We 
find  the  best,  wisest  and  vast  majority  of 
christian  men,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  coun- 
tries, practicing  and  defending  it  as  a  sacred 
duty.  And  how  can  it  be  viewed  as  any 
thing  other  than  a  divine  appointment,  lying 
in  the  very  bosom  of  Christianity  since  the 
beginning  ?  If  it  was  not  introduced  by  the 
apostles,  when  was  it  introduced  1  If  it  was 
not  begun  by  authority  of  God,  by  whose 
authority  was  it  begun  ?  To  these  inquiries 
all  history  is  silent;  and  the  world-wide 
practice  of  infant  baptism  stands  forth  a 
greater  riddle  than  the  pyramids  of  Egypt 
or  the  wasting  memorials  of  Yucatan  ;  Chris- 
tians are  dumb  as  Fejees  as  to  the  origin  of 
some  of  their  most  cherished  rites;  and  the 
christian  world  in  a  day  completely  changed 
one  of  its  commonest  services  without  having 
been  made  conscious  of  it  for  fifteen  hundred 
years ! 

We   had  noted  a  number  of  other  points 
upon  which   to   remark  in  connection  with 


349 

the  warrants  God  has  given  to  his  Church 
for  the  baptism  of  infants  ;  but  we  can  now 
do  no  more  than  allude  to  them.  We  can- 
not argue  them  for  want  of  space. 

If  we  look  at  the  Church  under  the  former 
dispensations,  we  see  that  infants  at  eight 
days  old  were  received  into  it  by  explicit 
divine  direction.  God  has  but  one  Church, 
and  that  essentially  the  same  in  all  time. 
And  as  God  sanctioned  and  appointed  infant 
membership  in  his  Church  among  the  Jews, 
with  whom  Christianity  originated,  until 
God  himself  shall  annul  that  appointment, 
infant  church-membership  must  continue  to 
bear  his  sanction. 

Dr.  Fuller  denies  that  baptism  in  any 
sense  has  come  into  the  room  of  circum- 
cision ;  but  Paul  calls  baptism  "  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,"  (Col.  2:11;)  and  it  is  as 
clear  as  light  that  baptism  now  does  fulfil 
an  office  once  performed  by  circumcision 
among  the  Jews.  Both  are  signs  of  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  God's  love.  The  reason 
for  extending  one  to  children  holds  equally 
with  regard  to  the  other.  And  as  infants 
30* 


350 

were  to  be  circumcised,  what  is  more  natu- 
ral than  the  inference  that  they  are  also  to 
be  baptized  ? 

All  the  Mosaic  baptisms  extended  to  in- 
fants as  well  as  adults.  Children  were 
liable  to  the  same  contaminations  with  their 
parents,  and  had  to  undergo  the  same  pro- 
cesses of  purification.  When  proselytes 
were  baptized  their  children  were  all  bap- 
tized with  them.  And  when  the  apostles, 
being  Jews,  were  sent  to  baptize  all  nations, 
how  could  they  have  thought  of  excluding 
infants  without  specific  directions  to  that 
effect  ? 

It  formerly  was  argued  by  Baptists,  that 
baptism  is  a  positive  ordinance,  and  that  no 
one  can  have  any  right  to  it  but  those  spe- 
cifically designated.  But  where  then  is  the 
right  of  women  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  ?  This  is  a  positive  ordinance  ;  and 
yet,  in  all  the  Bible,  women  are  no  where 
specified  as  entitled  to  it.  By  analogy  and 
inference  alone  are  we  authorized  to  give 
the  communion  to  women.  Analogy  and 
inference  then  are  also  sufficient  to  warrant 


351 

the  baptizing  of  infants.  And  when  we  see 
that  every  thing  implied  in  baptism  was 
done  for  infants  up  to  the  time  it  was  insti- 
tuted, without  specific  information  to  the 
contrary,  analogy  binds  us  to  the  conclusion 
that  baptism  is  not  exclusively  for  adults. 

The  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the 
Red  Sea  is  expressly  noted  by  Paul  as  a 
type  of  baptism.  *  These  things  happened 
unto  them  as  our  examples,  (tupoi,)  upon 
whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come." 
As  was  their  baptism  unto  Moses,  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea,  such  is  our  baptism  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  prophet  like 
unto  Moses.  Paul  is  also  very  particular, 
and  would  not  have  us  to  be  ignorant,  how 
that  all  who  came  out  of  Egypt — young  and 
old,  sons  and  daughters,  they  and  their  little 
ones — "all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were 
all  baptized  ;"  (1  Cor.  10  :  1-11.)  And  if 
all,  including  "little  ones,"  were  baptized 
unto  Moses,  and  that  baptism  was  a  type  or 
example  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ — 
all  of  which  the  inspired  apostle  is  so  anx- 
ious to  impress  upon   his  readers — is  it  not 


352 

infallibly  certain  that  infants  are  to  be  bap- 
tized as  well  as  adults? 

The  Greek  words  pistos  and  pistol — a 
faithful  and  faithfuls — when  applied  to  per- 
sons in  the  New  Testament,  designate  them 
as  church-members,  as  persons  belonging  to 
the  household  of  faith.  See  1  Cor.  4:17; 
Eph.  6:21;  Col.  4  :  9 ;  1  Pet.  5:12;  Acts 
16  :  1  ;  1  Tim.  5  :  16—6  :  2—4  :  12 ;  Eph. 
1:1;  Col.  1  :  2.  The  term  implies  all  that 
is  included  in  christian  discipleship,  and  in 
the  case  of  Lydia  it  is  so  strongly  connected 
with  baptism  as  to  be  interchangeable  with 
it.  "  When  she  was  baptized  with  her  fam- 
ily, she  besought  us  saying,  "If  (since)  you 
have  adjudged  me  to  be  a  pistaen — a  faithful 
to  the  Lord — come  into  my  house  and  abide 
there;"  (Acts  16  :  15.)  The  sense  in  this 
passage  would  be  the  same  if  we  were  to 
put  the  term  baptized  in  the  place  of  faithful 
and  faithful  for  baptized.  It  is  impossible 
to  conceive  how  an  individual  can  be  one 
and  not  the  other,  as  the  Christian  Church 
is  constituted.  And  to  call  one  a  faithful  is 
equivalent  to  calling  him  a  christian  brother, 


353 

a  full  disciple  of  Christ.  But  Paul  to  Thus 
(1:6)  explicitly  applies  this  term  to  children. 
Speaking  of  the  qualities  to  be  possessed  by 
a  bishop,  the  apostle  says,  4t  He  must  be  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  having  children  (tekna) 
who  are  faithfuls."  The  word  tekna  is 
used  to  denote  the  children,  "from  two  years 
old  and  under"  that  Herod  ordered  to  be 
slain  in  and  about  Bethlehem.  A  certain 
Baptist  writer  admits  that  it  means  "all  mi- 
nors from  twenty  days  old."  The  apostle 
makes  no  distinction  between  the  eldest  and 
the  youngest.  Of  what  ever  age,  he  here 
makes  it  a  part  of  a  bishop's  business  to 
have  his  children  faithfuls.  We  find  also 
that  John  in  his  Epistle,  which  is  written  to 
faithfuls,  (1  Jno.  5  :  13,)  distinguishes  be- 
tween fathers,  young  men  and  little  child- 
ren ;  (2  :  12,  13.)  Would  the  apostles  have 
given  these  significant  christian  titles  to 
little  children  whilst  they  denied  to  them 
christian  church-membership  and  christian 
baptism?     It  cannot  be. 

We  cannot  see  occasion  then  to  add  any 
thing    more.     In  winding    up  a  very  well- 


354 

conducted  argument  on  the  subject  of  "do- 
mestic slavery,"  Dr.  Fuller  finally  settles 
down  upon  this:  "Whai  God  sanctioned  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and,  permitted  in  the  Neio, 
cannot  be  a  sin."  We  agree  with  the  logic 
of  that  argument  and  with  the  conclusion 
which  it  is  designed  to  support.  And  if  the 
Doctor  will  apply  it  to  the  subject  of  infant 
church  membership,  he  will  fiud  it  vastly 
more  powerful  against  him  on  this  question 
than  it  was  for  him  in  the  cause  in  which 
he  called  it  to  his  aid.  God  not  only 
"sanctioned  "  infant  church-membership  in 
the  Old  Testament,  but  positively  ordained 
and  required  it.  And  in  the  New  Testament 
he  not  only  permitted  it,  but  so  spoke  and 
acted  with  regard  to  children,  and  so  moved 
his  inspired  servants  to  act  and  speak  on  the 
subject,  as  inevitably  to  lead  the  mind  of 
the  christian  world  to  believe  that,  so  far 
from  abridging  the  former  immunities  of 
children,  their  position  and  rights  under  the 
gospel  are  vastly  elevated  and  enlarged. 
And  what  God  commanded  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  ry  word  and  deed  sanc- 
tioned in  the  New,  cannot  be  a  sin. 


355 

*'  Go  then,  christian  parent,  and  with  a  fer- 
vent and  confiding  heart  offer  your  children 
in  solemn  consecration  to  Him  who  made 
them,  in  the  holy  ordinance  which  he  him- 
self has  appointed.  Go  let  them  be  marked 
by  Christ's  commissioned  ambassador  as 
members  beloved  of  the  Saviour's  fold,  for 
he  hath  said,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Give  them  to  your  blessed  Lord 
in  the  sacrament  of  his  love  and  mercy,  for 
he  hath  promised,  "Whosoever  shall  give  to 
drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones  a  cap  of 
cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a  disciple, 
verily  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward." 
Bring  them,  and  in  the  name  of  Jesus  we 
will  receive  them  into  the  bosom  of  the 
Church,  which  is  his  body;  for  he  bath  de- 
clared, "  Whoso   shall   receive  one  such 

LITTLE  CHILD   IN  MY  NAME  HECEIVETH    ME." 


356 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

Terms  of  communion — Baptist  inconsistencies 
—  Testimony  of  Robert  Hall — Baptist  in~ 
tolerance — Their  unwarranted  magisterial 
arrogance —  Conclusion. 

The  reader  will  bear  with  a  few  para- 
graphs we  desire  to  submit  on  Dr.  Fuller's 
11  Terms  of  Communion"  and  we  have  done. 

And  here  let  it  be  understood  and  rwarked 
down  for  continual  reference,  that  Dr.  Ful- 
ler holds  and  teaches,  and  that  it  is  held  and 
taught  by  all  those  Baptists  with  whom  he 
operates,  that  no  man,  and  no  woman,  though 
pious  as  the  apostle  John  or  the  Virgin  Mary, 
has  any  right  or  claim  whatever  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  without  first 
being  totally  immersed  in  water.  He  says  he 
admits  and  rejoices  to  know,  "that  in  Pedo. 
baptist  (that  is  our)  churches  there  are  some 
of  the  noblest  lights  and  ornaments  of  Chris- 
tianity ;"  (p.  238 ;)  but  turns  them  all  off  in 


357 

excommunication,  saying,  "We  cannot  admii 
them,  however  much  we  may  love  them ; 
to  do  this  would  be  to  declare  such  persons 
qualified  for  membership  in  our  (Baptist) 
churches  /"  (p.  237.)  Is  it  not  amazing  that 
intelligent  christian  men  should  be  guilty  of 
such  glaring  inconsistency,  such  outrages  of 
the  plainest  charity,  such  insults  to  common 
sense  ?  "  The  noblest  lights  and  ornaments 
of  Christianity  "  not  qualified  for  member- 
ship in  Baptist  churches  !  and  therefore  to 
be  excommunicated  f  !  What  do  these  men 
mean  ?  Are  Baptist  churches  composed  of 
angels?  Alas!  for  angelic  excellency,  if 
certain  Baptists  of  our  acquaintance  are  to 
be  taken  as  specimens  of  it.  And  yet  Dr. 
Fuller  talks  as  if  Baptists  were  "  more  than 
angels,"  to  whom  "the  noblest  lights  and 
ornaments  of  Christianity  "  are  nothing  but 
vile  dog?,  to  be  ignominiously  kicked  out 
from  God's  table  ! 

And  with  all  he  has  the  effrontery  to  tell 
us  that  this  involves  no  breach  of  charity, 
no  want  of  "  the  highest  and  noblest  fellow- 
ship/' and  no  entrenchment  upon  the  freest 
31 


358 

operations  of  the  fondest  affection  !  (p.  239.) 
The  distinguished  Robert  Hall,  who  was 
himself  a  Baptist,  says,  "  Were  the  children 
of  the  same  parent,  in  consequence  of  the 
different  construction  they  put  on  a  disputed 
clause  in  their  father's  will,  to  refuse  to  eat 
at  the  same  table  or  to  drink  out  of  the 
same  cup.  it  would  be  ridiculous  for  them  to 
pretend  that  their  attachment  to  each  other 
remained  undiminished ;  nor  is  it  less  so 
for  Christians  to  assert  that  their  withdraw. 
ing  from  communion  with  their  brethren 
is  no  interruption  to  their  mutual  harmony 
and  affection.  It  is  a  serious  and  awful 
interrupt /'on,  and  will  ever  be  considered  in 
that  light."  "It  is  to  inflict  a  wound  on 
the  very  heart  of  charity  ;  and  if  it  is  not 
being  guilty  of  beating  our  fellow  servant, 
we  must  despair  of  ascertaining  the  mean- 
ing of  terms."  "  It  is  equally  repugnant  to 
reason  and  offensive  to  charity" — "It  is 
the  very  essence  of  schism." — Hall's  Works, 
vol.  1,  p.  323,  331,  333. 

Dr.  Fuller  agrees  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  social  ordinance.  Among  other  offices  it 


359 

is  designed  to  serve  as  a  solemn  mode  of 
christian  recognition,  by  which  we  show 
that  we  are  "owe  body"  as  we  partake  of 
"  one  bread."  It  is  God's  own  sacrament 
of  christian  fellowship;  and  to  say  that  to 
disown  us  there  is  no  disownment  of  our 
Christianity,  and  no  breach  of  brotherly  af- 
fection, is  to  try  to  persuade  us  that  black  is 
white  or  that  bitter  is  sweet.  Nay,  they 
that  do  it,  says  Robert  Hall,  to  be  consistent 
with  themselves,  must  impute  to  us  a  degree 
of  delinquency  equal  to  that  which  attaches 
to  the  most  flagrant  breaches  of  morality, 
and  deem  us  equally  guilty  in  the  sight  of 
God  with  those  unjust  persons,  idolaters, 
revelers  and  extortioners,  who  are  declared 
incapable  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  For 
if  the  guilt  imputed  in  this  instance  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  of  a  totally  different  order 
from  that  which  belongs  to  the  openly  vicious 
and  profane,  how  come  we  to  be  included  in 
the  same  sentence  ?  and  where  is  the  equity 
of  animadverting  upon  unequal  faults  with 
equal  severity  ? — Vol.  1,  p.  338. 

We  therefore  hold  the  Baptist  world  to  it} 


360 

that  to  disown  us  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to 
disown  us  altogether.  There  is  no  alterna- 
tive. He  that  is  not  fit  for  this  communion 
is  not  fit  for  any  other  communion  of  a 
christian  kind.  He  that  is  not  fit  to  eat  and 
drink  in  memory  of  the  Saviour,  according 
to  that  Saviour's  command,  is  not  fit  to  die 
or  prepared  for  the  judgment.  The  terms 
of  communion  on  earth  cannot  be  stricter 
than  the  terms  of  communion  in  heaven. 
If  we  are  not  qualified  to  sit  down  with 
Dr.  Fuller  and  his  Baptist  friends  in  Bal- 
timore, we  are  not  qualified  to  sit  down 
with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  king- 
dom of  God.  If  Baptists  have  the  right, 
and  are  in  duty  bound  to  exclude  us  from 
the  Lord's  Supper,  it  must  be  a  divine  right 
and  a  command  of  God  himself;  and  if  such 
are  God's  commands  as  to  exclude  Luther, 
Melancthon,  Howe,  Leighton,  Brainerd,  and 
others  like  them,  from  the  earthly  commu- 
nion, it  is  utter  folly  to  suppose  God  so 
inconsistent  with  himself  as  to  receive  these 
men  to  the  sublimer  communion  in  his  own 
high  abode.     Dr.  Fuller  says  that  he  cannot 


361 

admit  such  men  to  the  holy  Supper,  because 
this  would  be  to  pronounce  them  qualified 
for  membership  in  our  churches.  His  lan- 
guage of  course  implies  that  they  are  not 
members  of  the  church,  and  that  they  are 
unfit  to  be  recognized  as  members.  But  to 
attack  their  qualification  for  membership  in 
the  church  militant,  is  at  once  to  impugn 
their  hopes  of  admission  into  the  church 
triumphant;  or  else  to  assume  the  absurd 
position  that  men  may  be  in  all  respects 
worthy  to  "walk  with  Christ  in  white"  il- 
lustrious among  his  ransomed  saints,  and 
yet  not  worthy  to  sit  down  and  partake  of 
his  earthly  sacraments  !  *  Transubstantia- 
tion^  says  Robert  Hall,  "presents  nothing 
more  revolting  to  the  dictates  of  common 
sense;"  vol.  I,  p.  4b9. 

Dr.  Fuller  boasts  that  Baptists  in  all 
ages  "have  asserted  the  glorious  right  of 
liberty  of  conscience  for  every  man,  and 
have  sought  only  to  persuade  men  to  cast 
off  spiritual  tyranny,  whether  of  state,  or 
creed,  or  church,  or  priest."  We  tell  him 
that  Baptists  of  his  sort  in  all  ages  have 
31* 


362 

been  the  advocates  of  proscription  and  the 
asserters  of  intolerance  hardly  less  arrogant 
than  that  which  makes  Popery  the  loathing 
of  the  earth.  He  may  call  this  wholesale 
slander,  base  and  unmitigated.  But  hear 
the  testimony  of  a  man  of  God,  one  of  his 
oion  brethren,  except  "  in  sectarianism  and 
bigotry."  "  I  am  fully  persuaded,"  says 
Robert  Hall,  "that  few  of  our  brethren  have 
duly  reflected  on  the  strong  resemblance 
which  subsists  between  the  pretensions  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  principles  im- 
plied in  strict  communion  ;  both  equally 
intolerant;  the  one  armed  with  pains  and 
penalties,  the  other,  I  trust,  disdaining  such 
aid  ;  the  one  the  intolerance  of  power,  the 
other  of  weakness."  "  The  Romish  Church," 
says  hp,  "pretends  to  an  absolute  infallibil- 
ity; not,  however,  in  such  a  sense  as  implies 
an  authority  to  introduce  new  doctrine,  but 
merely  in  the  proposal  of  apostolic  traditions 
and  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  While 
she  admits  the  Scripture  to  be  the  original 
rule  of  faith,  she  requires,  under  pain  of 
excommunication,  that  the  sense  she  puts  on 


363 

its  words  should  be  received  with  the  same 
submission  with  the  inspired  volume.  In 
what  respects,  let  me  ask,  is  the  conduct  of 
the  strict  Baptists  different  f  .  .  All  that 
infallibility  which  the  Church  of  Rome  pre- 
tends to  is  the  right  of  placing  her  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture  on  a  level  with  the  word 
of  God.  She  professes  to  promulgate  no 
new  revelation,  but  solely  to  render  her 
sense  of  it  imperative  and  binding.  And  if 
we  presume  to  treat  our  fellow  Christians, 
merely  because  they  differ  from  us  in  their 
construction  of  a  positive  precept,  as  unwor- 
thy of  being  recognized  as  Christ's  disciples 
and  disqualified  for  the  communion  of  saints, 

WE  DEFY  ALL  THE  POWERS  OF  DISCRIMINATION 
TO  ASCERTAIN  THE  DIFFERENCE  OF  THE  TWO 
CASES,  OR  TO  ASSIGN  A  REASON  WHY  WE  MUST 
ASCRIBE  THE  CLAIM  OF  INFALLIBILITY  TO  ONE 
AND  NOT  TO  THE  OTHER." 

The  same  author  says  further,  "Why  is 
the  act  of  debarring  every  other  denomina- 
tion from  admission  (to  the  Supper)  not  a 
punishment?  Solely  because  Baptist  socie- 
ties   are    too    few  and    too    insignificant   to 


364 

enable  them  to  realize  the  effects  of  their 
system  in  its  full  extent.  Their  principle 
involves  an  absolute  interdict  of  church 
privileges  to  the  members  of  every  other  com- 
munity;  but  being  an  inconsiderable  minori- 
ty, there  are  not  wanting  numerous  and 
respectable  societies  who  stand  ready  to 
give  a  welcome  reception  to  the  outcasts  and 
to  succor  the  exiles.  That  their  rejection 
is  not  followed  by  its  natural  consequence, 
a  total  privation  of  the  communion  of  saints, 
is  not  to  be  ascribed  in  the  smallest  degree 
to  the  liberality  or  forbearance  of  strict 
Baptists,  hut  solely  to  their  imbecility.  The 
celebration  of  the  Eucharist  they  consider 
as  null  and  void  when  attended  to  by  a  Pe- 
dobaptist;  his  approach  to  the  table  is  abso- 
lutely prohibited  within  the  sphere  of  their 
jurisdiction ;  and  should  their  principles 
ever  obtain  a  general  prevalence,  the  com- 
memoration of  the  love  of  a  crucified  Saviour 
would  become  impracticable^  except  to  per- 
sons of  their  own  persuasion.  Instances  have 
often  occurred  where  the  illiberal  practice 
against  which   we  are  contending  has  been 


365 

felt  to  be  a  punishment  of  no  ordinary  sever 
ity ;  where  eminently  holy  men  have  been 
so  situated  that  the  only  opportunity  they 
possessed  of  celebrating  the  passion  of  the 
Redeemer  has  been  wilhheld,  and  they  have 
been  compelled  most  reluctantly  to  forego 
one  of  the  most  exalted  privileges  of  the 
church ;  nor  has  it  ever  been  known  that 
compassion  for  the  peculiar  hardships  of  the 
case  was  suffered  to  suspend  the  unrelenting 
severity  of  the  sentence.  Let  me  ask  the  ad_ 
vocates  for  the  exclusive  system,  whether 
they  would  be  moved  for  a  moment  to  extend 
their  indulgence  to  a  solitary  individual  who 
differed  with  them  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
although  he  was  so  circumstanced  as  to 
render  a  union  with  other  classes  of  Chris- 
tians impossible  ?"  HalVs  Works,  vol.  ],  pp. 
358,  450,  475.  And  yet  this  unrelenting 
proscription  of  men  acknowledged  to  be 
saints  of  God  is  to  be  called  " asserting  the 
glorious  right  of  liberty  of  conscience  /" — 
"opposition  to  all  spiritual  tyranny  !  !n  Alas ! 
alas !  for  these  boasted  apostles  of  freedom 
of  conscience! 


Robert  Hall  says,  "The  advocates  of 
strict  communion  are  not  engaged  in  pre- 
serving their  own  liberty,  but  in  an  attack 
on  the  liberty  of  others  ;  their  object  is  not  to 
preserve  the  worship  in  which  they  join  pure 
from  contamination,  but  to  sit  in  judgment 

ON  THE  CONSCIENCES  OF  THEIR   BRETHREN  and 

to  deny  them  the  privileges  of  the  visible  church 

ON    ACCOUNT    OF    A    DIFFERENCE     OF    OPINION, 

ichich  is  neither  imposed  on  themselves  nor 
deemed  fundamental.  They  propose  to  build 
a  church  upon  the  principle  of  an  absolute 
exclusion  of  a  multitude  of  societies,  which 
they  must  either  acknowledge  to  be  true 
churches,  or  be  convicted  of  the  greatest 
absurdity;  while  for  conduct  so  monstrous 
and  unnatural  they  are  precluded  from  the 
plea  of  necessity,  because  no  attempt  is 
made  by  Pedobaptists  to  modify  their  wor- 
ship or  to  control  the  most  enlarged  exercise 
of  private  judgment."  "  It  is  not  a  defen- 
sive, but  an  offensive  measure  ;  it  is  not  an 
assertion  of  christian  liberty  by  resisting  en- 
croachment,  IT  IS  ITSELF  A  VIOLENT  EN- 
CROACHMENT ON    THE    FREEDOM    OF    OTHERS; 


367 

nn  effort  to  enforce  a  conformity  lo  Baptist 
Views;"  Hall,  vol.  1,  p.  334,  335.  These 
are  not  our  words.  It  is  the  language  of 
one  of  the  most  holy,  observant,  eloquent 
and  conscientious  men  the  Baptist  societies 
have  ever  produced.  And  if  it  does  not 
fasten  down  on  Dr.  Fuller,  and  all  who 
think  with  him,  the  charge  of  intolerant,  and 
even  persecuting  arrogance,  it  is  useless  to 
rely  upon  the  powers  of  reason  and  common 
sense  to  apprehend  truth. 

As  Protestants,  we  are  accustomed  to  de- 
mand of  Romanists  whence  they  derive  the 
right  to  decide  authoritativelv  against  those 
who  conscientiously  differ  from  them.  And 
in  the  same  manner  we  ask  our  Baptist 
friends  where  they  get  the  warrant  to  draw 
distinctions  between  God's  saints,  and  to  en- 
force their  particular  views  of  baptism  with 
ecclesiastical  penalties?  They  pretend  to 
agree  that  we  are  Christians.  Mr.  Carson 
says,  "  I  gladly  admit  that  many  who  differ 
from  me  with  respect  to  baptism  are  among 
the  excellent  of  the  earth?'*  Dr.  Fuller  takes 
up  the  same,  "  I  rejoice  to  know  that  in  Pe- 


368 

dobaptist  churches  there  are  some  of  the 
noblest  lights  and  ornaments  cf  Christianity  V 
And  Baptists  generally  profess  to  have  no 
difficulty  in  classing  many  Pedobaptists 
among  the  most  eminent  of  the  sons  of  God. 
What  right  then  have  they  to  reject  those 
whom  God  has  adopted  ?  Whence  have 
they  authority  to  prefer  the  weakest,  shab- 
biest and  most  inconsistent  member  of  Dr. 
Fuller's  congregation  to  Brainerd,  Dod- 
drige,  Baxter  and  Arndt ;  and  to  say  to  him, 
Come  and  partake  of  the  feast  Jesus  has 
provided  for  his  disciples,  whilst  they  turn 
away  those  whose  lives  exhibit  the  most  va- 
ried and  elevated  forms  of  moral  grandeur, 
missionary  zeal,  and  even  martyr  constan- 
cy ?  This  is  exercising  a  legislative  poicer 
30  high  and  awful  that  he  who  assumes  it, 
in  order  to  justify  such  conduct,  "ought,'' 
says  Robert  Hall,  "to  exhibit  his  creden- 
tials with  a  force  and  splendor  of  evidence 
equal  at  least  to  those  which  attested  the 
divine  legation  of  Moses  and  the  prophets,'7 
or  else  be  subject  to  the  scorn  and  condem- 
nation  of  all   right  thinking  people,  as  an 


369 

usurper  seeking  to  "lord  it  over  God's  her- 
itage." For,  "  by  repelling  and  discounten- 
ancing those  whom  God  accepts,  to  dispute 
the  validity  of  his  seal,  and  to  subject  to  our 
miserable  scrutiny  pretensions  that  have 
passed  the  ordeal  and  received  the  sanction 
of  Him  who  understandeth  the  hearts,  we 
should  have  just  reason  to  tremble  for  the 
consequences;  and  with  all  our  esleem  for 
the  piety  of  many  strict  Baptists,  we  con- 
ceive it  no  injury  or  insult  to  put  up  the 
prayer  of  our  Lord  for  them — Father,  for- 
give them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do!" 
Hall,  vol.  1,  p.  495. 

No  wonder  then  that  this  was  once  offen- 
sive to  the  conscience  and  heart  of  Dr. 
Fuller  himself,  when  yet  his  first  love  was 
unsullied.  No  wonder  that  in  the  youthful 
tenderness  of  his  Christian  experience  he 
was  "strongly  opposed  to  this  practice,  and 
verily  thought  when  he  united  with  the 
Baptists  that  he  ought  to  do  many  things 
against  it,  which  he  also  did;"  (p.  219.)  It 
is  totally  at  war  with  all  the  generous  im- 
pulses which  the  Spirit  of  God  plants  in  the 
32 


370 

bosom  of  the  true  convert.  No  christian 
man  who  has  his  heart  in  the  right  place 
can  adopt  it  without  violence  to  his  own  bet- 
ter feelings.  Dr.  Fuller  even  now,  though 
"  sorry  to  find  such  a  man  as  Baptist  Noel 
advocating  open  communion,"  declares  that  if 
he  were  at  liberty  to  give  vent  to  the  feel- 
ings of  his  heart,  he  would  joyfully  break 
down  the  fence  and  invite  all.  Why  not 
then  cherish  and  follow  these  holy  impulses? 
Why  thus  grieve  and  mortify  the  Spirit  for 
the  sake  of  the  interests  of  a  sect,  or  the 
support  of  a  dogma  which  we  have  shown  to 
be  so  unfounded  and  so  dangerous  ?  God 
certainly  has  not  written  in  his  "living 
epistles  "  what,  he  contradicts  in  his  Word. 
And  if,  at  the  expense  of  all  their  better 
impulses,  under  the  risk  of  grieving  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  with  a  magisterial  arro- 
gance akin  to  Popery  itself,  Baptists  still 
persist  in  disallowing  to  us  the  right  to  eat 
and  drink  as  Christ  commanded,  in  memory 
of  him,  let  them  not  think  hard  of  it  when 
we  meet  them  as  we  would  meet  any  other 
railers  at  our  faith  or  assailants  of  our  hope. 


371 

We  cannot  be  at  peace  with  those  who  as- 
sume an  attitude  so  lordly  and  would  stab 
us  in  a  place  so  vital.  To  call  us  saints  of 
God,  and  yet  to  assume  authority  to  exclude 
us  from  the  communion  table,  is  a  thing 
which  outward  kisses  and  professions  of  fra- 
ternity will  not  atone  for.  In  point  of  fact, 
Baptist  societies  are  too  imbecile  to  make 
their  principles  effectually  inconvenient  to  us. 
It  is  only  in  point  of  principle  that  we  speak 
of  their  conduct  as  offensive  and  reprehensi- 
ble. We  can  eat  the  Lord's  Supper  without 
seeking  it  from  thern.  But  to  call  us  sons, 
whilst  treating  us  as  aliens,  and  to  pro- 
nounce us  saints,  whilst  rejecting  us  as 
pagans,  we  will  hold  to  be  unchristian,  in- 
consistent and  repugnant  to  common  sense  ; 
and  we  will  not  be  kept  by  honeyed  ver- 
bal caresses,  from  denouncing  it  as  God 
and  reason  require  that  it  should  be  de- 
nounced. "To  disown  those  whom  Christ 
acknowledges,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "  is  and. 
christian  disobedience  to  Christ."  "  To 
set  at  naught  the  weakest  of  Christ's  little 
ones,"  says  he,  "  I  call    not  illiberal,  but 


372 

unchristian;"  (p.  5.)  We  hold  the  arbitrary 
exclusion  of  us  from  the  communion  as  a 
disowning  of  us,  and  a  setting  of  us  al  naught. 
No  ingenuity  on  earth  can  reduce  it  to  any 
thing  less.  Hall,  and  Carson,  and  Noel, 
and  all  the  best  and  most  distinguished  Bap- 
tists  in  Europe,  have  seen  this,  and  felt  it, 
and  acknowledged  it.  We  see  it,  and  know 
it,  and  feel  it,  as  every  candid  Christian 
must.  And  if  Baptists  here,  to  their  excom- 
munication of  us  will  continue  to  add  a  mock- 
ery of  our  common  sense,  by  urging  them- 
selves upon  our  christian  regard  by  telling 
us  what  a  tender  christian  affection  they 
bear  towards  us  !  let  them  not  complain  if 
we  hold  them  to  be  either  blind  fanatics 
deceiving  themselves,  or  sectarian  hypocrites 
seeking  to  impose  on  our  credulity. 

We  know  that  our  Baptist  friends  will 
pronounce  such  sentiments,  as  they  have 
already  pronounced  them,  unchristianly  se- 
vere. But  they  are  not  any  more  severe  or 
unchristian,  their  own  men  being  judges, 
than  the  sentence  of  excommunication  which 
they  hold  with  relentless  rigor  over  hosts  of 


373 

acknowledged  saints  of  God.  We  regret  to 
be  driven  to  make  such  comments  upon  the 
conduct  and  opinions  of  .any  u  who  profess 
and  call  themselves  Christians."  We  would 
fain  take  them  by  the  hand  and  walk  with 
them  upon  the  highway  of  a  common  Chris- 
tianity. We  would  cheerfully  concede  to 
them  the  utmost  freedom  of  conscience  and 
liberty  to  administer  their  baptisms  in  any 
mode  they  may  see  fit.  and  still  esteem  them 
entitled  to  our  christian  regard.  But  when 
they  claim  infallibility  for  their  interpreta- 
tion of  God's  Word,  as  they  do  by  seeking 
to  enforce  that  interpretation  by  the  pains  of 
excommunication,  duty  to  God,  to  ourselves 
and  to  our  children,  demands  of  us  to  treat 
such  pretensions  in  Baptists  just  as  we  treat 
similar  pretensions  in  Papists.  We  cannot 
have  respect  to  persons  in  things  which  thus 
touch  the  vitals  of  our  Christianity.  To  tell 
us  that  we  are  flagrant  sinners  for  baptizing 
our  babes,  and  that  we  are  alarmingly  diso- 
bedient to  a  positive  command  of  Christ  be- 
cause we  refuse  to  disown  our  baptism  as 
profanity  by  coming  to  them  to  be  immersed, 


374 

and  "emphatically  to  repeat  all  this,"  as 
Dr.  Fuller  says  they  do,  amid  the  solemni- 
ties of  the  holy  Supper,  by  sternly  refusing 
to  let  us  participate,  and  then  to  seek  to 
quiet  indignation  by  outside  palaver  about 
our  being  saints  and  the  noblest  lights  and 
ornaments  of  Christianity,  is  not  simply  ri- 
diculous, it  is  mockery,  a  disgrace  to  any 
man's  profession,  an  outrage  upon  common 
sense  which  we  cannot  be  expected  to  wink 
at,  and  which  we  will  never  cease  to  stig- 
matize as  it  deserves. 

In  the  name  of  God  we  therefore  charge 
all  Baptists,  and  all  with  sympathies  for  the 
Baptist  system,  as  they  shall  give  account 
in  the  dreadful  judgment,  to  give  to  these 
things  a  careful  and  honest  consideration. 
It  can  be  no  advantage  to  them  or  us  to 
cheat  ourselves  with  lies  ;  therefore  let  them 
look  for  the  real  truth,  and  decide  before 
heaven  whether  they  can  any  longer  give 
their  sanction  and  influence  to  inconsisten- 
cies  and  wrongs  so  utterly  unfounded  both 
in  reason  and  Scripture.  We  live  in  trying 
times.     The  final  battles  between  truth  and 


375 

error  are  being  fought.  The  powers  of  the 
heavens  are  shaking  and  the  foundations  of 
the  earth  are  being  turned  up.  "The  time 
is  come  that  judgment  must  begin."  Let 
men  beware  then  how  they  tamper  with  the 
fundamental  laws  of  Christ's  kingdom,  or 
legislate  terms  of  communion  for  the  benefit 
of  a  sect,  or  imitate  the  errors  and  assump- 
tions of  the  "  Man  of  Sin."  Above  all,  let 
no  man,  at  this  eleventh  hour  of  the  wTorld, 
presume  to  remove  and  re-arrange  "the  an- 
cient land-marks,"  which  have  been  stand- 
ing firm  in  their  places  for  nearly  a  score 
of  centuries.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Stand 
ye  in  the  ways,  and  see,  and  ask  for  the  old 
paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  and  walk 
therein."     "Stand  fast  therefore  in  the 

LIBERTY  WITH  WHTCH  ClIRIST  HATH  3IADE  US 
FREE,  AND  BE  NOT  ENTANGLED  AGAIN  WITH 
THE  YOKE  OF  BONDAGE." 

The  Review  of  Fidelis  Scrutator  is  ended. 
May  God  bless  it  to  the  good  of  his  church 
and  people !  The  time  will  come  when  it 
will  be  thought  strange  that  ever  such  an 
essay  should  have  been  called  for.     Truth 


376 

must  be  triumphant.  The  flimsy  sophistry 
and  the  unblushing  impudence  by  which 
men  have  unwittingly  or  otherwise  sought 
to  obscure  it,  and  the  tedious  processes  of 
reasoning  by  which  such  attempts  are  op- 
posed, will  soon  be  alike  forgotten  amid  the 
coming  victories  of  a  liberal  and  unstinted 
Christianity.  Before  the  brightness  of  the 
Saviour's  appearing  all  these  religious  con- 
troversies  shall  vanish.  From  Jerusalem 
round  about  to  Illyricum,  and  from  the  riv- 
ers to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  there  shall  yet 
"  be  one  fold  and  one  Shepherd."  And  in 
joyful  confidence  we  await  the  coming  time, 
when  from  the  dwellers  in  the  valleys,  and 
caught  up  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  hills,  and 
echoed  by  the  islands  over  all  the  seas,  shall 
be  heard  the  apostolic  chant  of  christian 
unity — "  One  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Bap- 
tism, one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is 


THE  END. 


STANDARD  AND  MISCELLANEOUS 

LUTHERAN  PUBLICATIONS, 

PUBLISHED  AND   FOR   SALE   BY 

T.  NEWTON    KURTZ, 
No.  151  WEST  PSATT  §TKEET, 

BALTIMORE,    M  dT. 


ENGLISH  LITURGY,  for  the  use  of  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Churches  in  the  United  States,  Bound  in 
various  styles. 

The  German  LITURGY  (Pennsylvania  Synod's  edition) 
bound  in  various  styles,  can  also  be  obtained  as  above. 

GENERAL  SYNOD'S  STANDARD  EDITIONS 
ENGLISH  LUTHERAN  HYMN  BOOK: 

48mo,~  Smallest  size. 

24mo, —  Vedium     do. 

12mo, — Large         do. 

8vo, Extra  large,  do.  for  the  pulpit. 

These  Hymn  Hooks  are  bound  in  various  styles.,  some 
very  beautifully,  and  are  sold  entirely  for  cash.  J\  eat  gilt 
Clasps  can  be  put  on  any  of  the  styles  for  twenty-rive 
cents,  and  superior  plated  Clasps  for  fifty  cents  each, 
additional.  • 

GERMAN  LUTHERAN    HYMN-BOOKS. 
EVANG.    L1EDER-SAMMLUXG— General    Synod's 

standard  edition,  24mo,  full  sheep;  also,   embossed 

morocco,  marble  edges 
DEUTCHES  GESANGBUCH— Penn.  Synod's  edition, 

33mo,  and  12mo,  roan  embossed. 
GEMEINSCHAFTLICHES    GESANGBUCH  — New 

York  or  Union  edition,  roan  embossed. 


E3VG.  L.TJTII.  SUXDAY-SCHOOIi   HYMX-BOOK. 

With  a  view  to  the  more  extensive  use  of  this  Hymn- 
book  in  our  Sunday  Schools,  the  prices  have  been  much 
reduced,  and  they  are  now  offered  at  a  very  small  ad- 
vance on  the  prime  cost ;  and  as  there  is  no  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  used  altogether  in  our  Sunday 
Schools,  (for  the  book  is  as  well  adapted  for  the  purpose 
as  any  puhlished  in  the  country,)  we  trust  our  Superin- 
tendents and  Teachers  will  make  an  effort  to  introduce 
it  generally.     They  are  bound  in  various  styles. 

GERMAN  L.UTH.  SUIVD AY-SCHOOL  HYMX-BOOK. 

Authorized  to  be  published  by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
is  now  ready — 32mo,  half  morocco. 

ENGLISH  LUTHERAN  CATECHISMS. 

LUTHER'S  SMALLER  CATECHISM— Gen.  Synod's 
standard  edition,  18mo,  half  sheep  or  cloth. 

LUTHER'S  SHORTER  CATECHISM,  illustrated  by 
additional  Questions  and  Answers,  by  J.  G.  Morris, 
D.  D.,  18mo,  half  sheep  or  cloth. 

THE  SERIAL  CATECHISM-Or  Progressive  (Reli- 
gious) Instructor  for  Children,  prepared  with  a 
special  view  to  Infant  and  Sunday  Schools,  in  three 
numbers,  24mo.  Numbers  ONE  and  TWO  are  now 
ready.  They  can  be  had  separately  or  bound  to- 
gether. 

GERMAN   LUTHERAN    CATECHISM. 

DR.  LUTHER'S  KLEINER  CATECH1SMUS— West 

Pennsylvania  Synod's  new  and  improved  edition  con- 
taining the  Formula  of  Discipline,  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, &c,  18mo,  half  sheep. 


LUTHERAN  PRAYER  BOOK— For  the  use  of  Fami- 
lies and  individuals,  with  Introductory  Remarks  en 


3 

Family  Prayer,  together  with  A  Selection  of  176 
Hymns,  with  J\Iusic  or  Tunes  adapted  to  them.  By  B. 
Kurtz,  D.  D. 

"This  PRAYER.  BOOK  has  been  prepared  mainly 
for  the  English  portion  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  yet  it 
is  believed  nothing  will  be  found  in  it  to  prevent  its  free 
use  in  any  Protestant  Christian  family.  In  the  German 
language  we  are  abundantly  supplied  with  such  helps  ; 
but  in  English,  a  general  and  complete  Prayer  Book, 
adapted  to  daily  devotion,  to  special  occasions,  and  to 
every  emergency,  has  thus  far  remained  a  desideratum, 
which  it  has  been  our  aim  to  supply.  It  is  therefore 
hoped  that  the  Lutheran  Church  especially,  will  en- 
courage this  enterprise." — Extract  from  the  Authors 
Preface. 

It  is  a  large  duodecimo  volume,  of  nearly  500  pages, 
printed  on  large,  clear  type,  and  fine  white  paper,  and 
bound  in  various  styles.  The  following  is  a  synopsis 
of  the  contents : 

Introduction — Prayer  in  all  its  Forms. 

Morning  and  Evening  Prayers,  with  Scripture  (read- 
ings) Lessons  for  every  day  for  six  weeks- 
Prayers  for  Particular  Days. 

Occasional  Prayers  and  Thanksgivings. 

Prayers  before  and  after  Meals. 

Morning  and  Evening  Prayers  for  Children  for  one 
week. 

Occasional  Prayers  for  Children. 

Morning  and  Evening  Prayers  for  Little  Children. 

WHY  ARE  YOU  A  LUTHERAN  ?  or  a  Series  of  Dis- 
sertations, explanatory  of  the  Doctrines,  Govern- 
ment, Discipline,  Liturgical  Economy,    Distinctive 
Traits,  &c,  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in 
the  United  States.     By  B.  Kurtz,  D.  D.,  with  an 
introduction  by  John  G.  Morris,  D.D.     12mo. 
11  We  believe  that  the  extensive  circulation  and  perusal 
of  this  publication  (  Why  are  You  a  Lutheran?)  among 
our  people,  will  be  the  means  of  rectifying  many  mis- 


takes,  and  diffusing  correct  information  in  regard  to 
Lutheran  ism ;  and  that  its  general  distribution  will  also 
tend  to  the  prevention  and  removal  of  unfounded  pieju- 
dices  in  the  case  of  many  candid  and  serious  persons  of 
other  denominations,  who  are  willing  to  investigate  be- 
fore they  censure  or  condemn." 

The  above  is  an  extract  from  a  Recommendation  signed 
by  many  of  our  most  eminent  ministers,  such  as  Dr.  S. 
S.  Schmucker,   Dr.  Reynolds,    Dr.   Krauth,    Dr.  Bach- 
man,  l)r  Morris,  Dr.  H.  N.  Pohlman,  Dr.  S.  W.  Harkey, 
the  late  Dr.  E.  Keller,  Revs.  P.  Rizer,  W.  A.  Passa- 
vant,  J.  Z.  Senderling.   S.  R.   Boyer,    P.  R.  Anspach, 
John  Heck,  A.  Babb,  J.  C.  Hope,  A.  H.  Lochman,  &c. 
It  is  bound  in  various  styles,  and  sold  at  reduced  prices. 
TREATISE  ON   PRAYER   IN  ALL  ITS  FORMS— 
Secret,   Social,  Ejaculatory,   in  Public  a'  d  in  the 
Family;  and  the  Training  of  Children.    The  former 
arranged  in  Catechetical  order,  and  the  latter  based 
on  Prov.  xxii,  6 — ''Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he 
should  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will   not  depart 
from  it."— By  B.  Kurtz,  D.  D.— ISmo.  cloth,  with 
a  portrait  of  the  author. 
EMENTS    OF    POPULAR    THEOLOGY — With 
special   reference   to  the   Doctrines  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, as    avowed  before  the    Diet   at  •  iugsburg,    in 
MDXXX,  by  S.  S.  Schmucker,  D.  D.,  8vo.  ^he^p— 
full  edition. 

Do.         do.         do.         12m 6.  cloth — Luth.  edition. 
Do.         do  do.  "     sheep  or  cloth — 

•Abridged  and  adapted  to  use  in  different  denominations. 

THE  AMERICAN  LUTHERAN  CHURCH— Histo- 
rically, Doctrinally  and  Practically  delineated  in 
several  occasional  Discourses,  by  S.  S.  Schmucker, 
D.  D,.  12mo.  cloth,  and  extra  gilt. 

SCHMUCKER  ON  THE  REFORMATION— ISmo. 

SCHMUCKER'S  PORTRAITURE  OF  LUTHER- 
AN1SM— 18mo.,  cloth. 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  ARNDT— Author  of  the  Work 
on  "  True  Christianity.1'     By  John   G.   Morris,   D. 
D.     18mo.,  cloth,  with  a  correct  portrait  of  Arndt. 
This  work  is  a  biography  of  one  of  the  ablest  men  and 
most  distinguished  servants  of  God  the  world  ever  pro- 
duced, and  is  now  offered  for  the  first  time  in  the  Eng- 
lish language.     It  should  be  read  by  every  Lutheran. 
EXPOSITION  OF  THE  GO   PELS— Luke  and  John. 
Designed  for  the  use  of  Families,  Bible  Classes  and 
Sunday  Schools.     By  Rev.   J.   G.  Morris,   D.    D., 
and  Rev.  Charles  A    Smith,  D.  D.,  12mo,  cloth. 
THE  CHARACTER   AND  VALUE  OF  AN  EVAN- 
GELICAL   MINISTRY,    and    the    Duty   of    the 
Church  in  Regard  to  it.     By  Rev.  Simeon  W.  Har- 
key,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Illinois  State 
University. 
"  The  writer  of  this  work  believes  that  the  greatest 
want,  as  well  as  the  greatest  hope  and  the  greatest  bless- 
ing of  this  country  and  of   the  world,  is  a  faithful  and 
well    qualified    Evangelical  Ministry.       So  deeply  is   he 
convinced  of  this,  that  he  has  solemnly  consecrated  the 
remainder  of  his  life,  be  it  worth  much  or  little,  to  the 
great  work  of  increasing  the  number  of  true  ministers 
of  Christ.  *  *  *  *  My  object  has  been  to  do  good — to  stir 
up   '  the  pure  minds  of  ministers  and  people  by  way  of 
remembrance,  and  to  come  to  the  he'p  of  my  brethren 
who  are  bearing  '  the  burden  and  heat  of  the  day  '  in  the 
master's  vineyard.  *  *  *   * 

"  I  would  commend  the  book  to  the  attention  of  all 
Christians,  and  especially  to  my  beloved  brethren  in  the 
ministry,  and  hope  that  they  may  find  great  benefit  by 
circulating  it  freely  among  the  people  of  their  churches." 
LECTURES  ON  THE  EPISTLE  OF  PAUL  THE 
~-Apa$?T4$  rlP  THE  HEBREWSJATES  are  entirely 

J       '8vo,  cloth. 
Thfs  is  a  valuaote  work,  highly  recommended  by  several 
of  our  Synods  and  most  eminent  Clergymen.  There  are 
but  ftw  ltft  of  the  edition. 


6 

LIFE  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER— Being  a  comprehen- 
sive, though  condensed  and  correct  History  of  the 
Life  and  stupendous  achievements  of  the  Great 
Reformer.  By  Rev.  R.  Weiser,  12mo,  cloth, — new 
edition,  revised  and  corrected,  and  illustrated  with 
a  correct  portrail  of  Luther  and  fifteen  fine  en- 
gravings, representing  the  most  important  events  in 
Luther's  life   and  history. 

THE  LIFE  OF  LUTHER— With  Special  Reference 
to  its  Earlier  Periods  and  the  opening  Scenes  of  the 
Reformation.  By  Barnas  Sears,  D.  D.  This  is  an 
three  wood  engravings,  all  finished  in  the  highest 
original  work;  with  three  fine  steel  and  twenty  - 
stvle  of  the  art— 12mo,  cloth. 

A  DEFENCE  OF  LUTHER  AND  THE  REFORMA- 
TION—By  John  Bachman,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  against 
the  Charges  of  John  Bellinger,  M.  D.,  and  others  ; 
to  which  are  appended  various  Communications  of 
ether  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic  writers  who 
engaged  in  the  controversy.     Large  12mo,  cloth. 

MEMOIR  OF  REV.  WALTER  GUNN,  late  Mission- 
ary in  India,  from  the  Evan.  Lutheran  Church  in 
the  United  States,  by  G.  A.  Lintner,  D  D.,  l8mo, 
cloth. 

A  MANUAL  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  INFANT 

BAPTISM,  AND  THE  MODE— By  Rev.  Thomas 

Lape.  A.  M.     Sixth  edition,  corrected  and  enlarged- 

—  18mo. 

11  This  is  a  brit f,  yet  comprehensive  work  in  favor  of 

Infant  Baptism,  and  presents  the  whole  controversy,  in 

so  simple  a  form  and  clear  a  light,  that  all  who  read 

can  understand  it." 

DISCIPLINE,  ARTICLES  OF  FAITH  AND  SY- 
WWn,\Jmo'T>NSTlTUTION,    AS    ADOPTED 

SOHMUCKER  0>^  LtTTH.  SYNOL^  ;OS  JiWu^ 
CA  ROLEN  A,  and  adjacent  States-^  ijtfiXKS 
added  a  Liturgy,  and  some  forms  ot  Prayer  for  fam- 
ilies and  individuals,  12mo,  cloth. 


THE  UNALTERED  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION— 
and  the  three  Chief  Symbols  of  the  Christian 
Church  with  Historical  Introductions  and  Critical 
and  Explanatory  Notes.  By  Christian  Heinrich 
Schott,  carefully  translated  from  the  German. 
12mo,  cloth. 
THEOLOGICAL   SKETCH    BOOK,  or  Skeletons   of 

Sermons,  2  vols.  8vo,  cloth. 
HAZEL1US'  CHURCH  HISTORY,  vol.  1,  12mo. 

A  selection  of  the   most  celebrated  SERMONS   of 
MARTIN  LUTHER  and  JOHN  CALVIN,  never  be- 
fore published  in  the  United  States,  to  which  is  prefixed 
a  Biographical  History  of  their  lives.     12mo,  cloth. 
LUTHER'S   COMMENTARY  ON  SAINT   PAUL'S 
EPISTLE  TO   THE   GALATIANS,  to  which  is 
prefixed  Tischer's  Life  of  Luther;  also,  a  Sketch  of 
the  Life  of  Zuingle.     8vo,  sheep. 
THE  CHILDREN   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT, 

by  Rev.  T.  Stork,  D.  D.,  12mo,  cloth. 
THE  SEPULCHRES  OF  OUR  DEPARTED,  by  Rev. 
F.  R.  Anspach,  A.  M.     12mo,  cloth. 

ENGLISH  LUTHERAN  ALMANAC, 

Containing  valuable  statistical  and  general  informa- 
tion of  the  Church  ;  also  a  complete  list  of  all  the  Lutheran 
ministers  in  the  United  States,  with  their  Post  Office  address, 
carefully  corrected, — published  annually. 

BLANK  CERTIFICATES  OF 

Ordination,  Licensure,  Confirmation,  and  Marriage. 
The/o?-»i  and  style  of  these  Certificates  are  entirely 
new  and  very  neat. 


STANDARD    THEOLOGICAL 

AND     VALUABLE 

MISCELLANEOUS   BOOKS 


THE  COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  ARMINIUS, 
D.  D.,  formerly  Professor  of   Divinity  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Leyden..     Translated  from  the  Latin,  xcilh 
a  sketch  of  the  Life  of  the  Author. 
It  may  not  be  generally  known  that  only  two  of  the 
three  volumes  of  the  Works  of  Armings  have  ever  been 
published   in  the  English    language,  viz :    The    edition 
published  in  1825,  by  James  ISichols,  London — the  third 
volume  either  never  having  been  translated,  or  if  it  was, 
never  re-published;  it  remains  for  an  American  trans- 
lator to  render  the  third  volume  into  English,  and  for  an 
American  publishing  house  to  first  offer,  in   the  English 
tongue,  the  complete  Works  of  the  Great  Expounder  of 
the  Arminian  System. 

The  competency  of  the  American  translator  for  his 
task  is  vouched  for  by  those  who  know  him  best,  and 
who  are  well  and  favorably  known  by  the  literary  and 
relig'ous  public. 

The  wori  s  of  Arminius  make  three  handsome  octavo 
volumes,  of  about  600  pages  each,  well  prin'ed  on  fair 
type,  bound  in  cloth. 

THE  COMPREHENSIVE  COMMENTARY  ON 
THE  BIBLE — Containing  Scott's  Marginal  References; 
Matt.  Henry's  Commentary  ;  Practical  Observations  of 
Rev.  Thomas  Scott,  D.  D.  with  extensive  Explanatory, 
Critical  and  Philological  Notes,  selected  from  Scott, 
Dod.irhlge.  Gill,  Adam  Clarke,  Patrick,  Poole,  Lowth, 
Burder,    Harmer,    Calmet,    Stuart,    Robinson,   Bush, 


9 

Rosemnueller,  Bloomfield,  and  many  other  writers  on 
the  Scriptures.  The  whole  designed  to  be  a  Digest  and 
combination  of  the  advantages  of  the  best  Bible  Commen- 
taries, embracing  all  that  is  valuable  in  Henry,  Scott, 
Doddridge,  Sfc,  &{c.  In  six  volumes  super  royal  octavo, 
bound  in  full,  strong  sheep. 

CLARKE'S  COMPLETE  COMMENTARY  ON  THE 
OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT— 4  vols.,  super 
royal  8vo,  in  full,  strong  sheep. 
CLARKE'S  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  NEW  TES- 
TAMENT—2  vols.,  super  royal  8vo,  full  sheep. 
PULPIT  CYCLOPEDIA  AND  MINISTER'S  COM- 
PANION, containing  361)  Skeletons  and  Sketches 
of  Sermons,  and  82  Essays  on  various  subjects,  8vo, 
cloth. 
FIVE   HUNDRED  SKETCHES  AND   SKELETONS 
OF  SERMONS,  suited  for  all  occasions,  8vo,  cloth. 

THE  COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  JOSEPHUS,  with  ex- 
planatory Notes  and  Observations,  8vo,  sheep. 

ENCYCLOPEDIA  OF  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE, 
Or  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Theology,  Religious  Bi- 
ography, Ecclesiastical  History,  &c.  Containing 
Definitions  of  all  Religious  Terms :  an  impartial 
account  of  the  principal  Religious  Denominations, 
&c.  &c.,  designed  as  a  complete  book  of  reference 
on  all  religious  subjects,  and  Companion  to  the  Bi- 
ble, forming  a  cheap  and  compact  Library  of  Reli- 
gious Knowledge — 1  vol.  super-royal  octavo,  full 
sheep  extra. 

NEANDER'S  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE 
CHRISTIAN  RELIGION  AND  CHURCH— 4 
vols.  8vo,  cloth. 

MOSIIEIM'S    ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY— 4to. 

full  sheep. 
WEST'S  COMPLETE  ANALYSIS  OF  TPIE  BIBLE, 

large  8vo.  full  sheep. 


10 

SIMMON'S  SCRIPTURAL  MANUAL,  alphabetically 
and  systematically  arranged,  designed  to  facilitate 
the  finding  of  Proof  Texts.  This  is  a  truly  valuable 
work. 

JESUS"  WITNESSES,  or  the  "Great  Salvation  Exem- 
plified."    12mo,  sheep. 

THE  COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  THOMAS  DICK, 
LL.  D. — Illustrated  with  numerous  engravings,  2 
vols.    8vo,  sheep. 

PLUTARCH'S  LIVES— 8vo,  sheep. 

THE  SPECTATOR— By  Addison,  8vo.,  sheep. 

ROLLLVS  ANCIENT  HISTORY— 2  vols  ,  8vo,  sheep. 

LIVES  AND  TIMES  OF  THE  MOST  DISTIN- 
GUISHED CHRISTIAN  FATHERS,  to  the  close 
of  the  3d  century,  8vo,  sheep. 

GA1LLARD  S  CHURCH  HISTORY— 8vo,  stiff  paper. 

PILGRIM'S  PROGRESS,  with  engravings,  18mo, 
cloth. 

LOOKING-GLASS,  OR  INTELLECTUAL  MIRROR 
— A  Juvenile  Book,  with  64  engravings,  18mo, 
cloth. 

DODDRIDGE'S  RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  RE- 
LIGION IN  THE  SOUL— 32mo,  cloth. 

KEMPIS'  CHRISTIAN'S  PATTERN— 32mo,  cloth. 

MASON  ON  SELF-KNOWLEDGE— 32mo,  cloth. 

MRS.  ROWE'S  DEVOTIONAL  EXERCISES  OF 
THE  HEART— 32mo,  cloth. 

YOUNG  AMERICAN,  or  Book  of  Government  and 
Law,  by  Peter  Parley,  12mo,  half  morocco. 


11 

To  Superintendents  and  Teachers  of 

SUNDAY  SCHOOLS. 

The  undersigned  respectfully  announces  that 
he  lias  been  appointed  Agent  for  the  sale  of  the 
Publications  of  the 

MASS\(IIUSETTS  SABBATH  SCHOOL  SOCIETY, 

Jlnd  is  prepared  to  furnish  them  at  loicest  catalogue  prices. 
These  publications  are  entirely  different  from  those 
published  by  any  other  S.  8.  Society,  and  are  now  so 
well  and  favorably  known  throughout  the  country,  that 
no  special  recommendation  is  deemed  necessary. 

Hie  whole  number  of  bound  volumes  of  this  Society 
is  about  650,  varying  in  price  from  7  cents  to  $].  They 
publish  20  different  volumes  of  Scripture  Question  Books, 
for  Sabbath  Schools,  and  a  large  number  of  Catechisms 
for  Infant  Schools. 

The  Society  has  put  up  six  selected  Libraries,  viz  : 
Little  Boifs  and  Girl's  Library — 25  vols,   for         $  3  00 
The  Infant's  Library— 4U  vols.  "  5  00 

The  Sabbath  School  Library— WO  vols.        "  10  00 

The  Family  Library— 25  vols.  "  ]0  00 

The  Children's  Library— 100  vols.  "  18  00 

The  Youth's  Library— 150  yols.  "  30  00 

The  prices  of  these  Sabbath  School  publications  are 
fully  as  low  if  not  lower  than  any  other  similar  books 
published  in  the  country,  and  are  regarded  as  unexcep- 
tionable on  the  score  of  sectarianism. 

A  full  assortment  will  always  be  kept  on  hand  and  for 
sale  by  the  undersigned — terms  cash. 

P.  S. — Full  descriptive  Catalogues,  with  the  price  an- 
nexed to  each  book,  will  be  furnished  gratis,  when  ap- 
plied for. 

T.  NEWTON  KURTZ, 

No.    151  Pratt  street. 


